User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 11

Picnic in the Park with Parnes
I am absolutely OK with a better photo and adjusted source. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
I would like to bring your attention that you have engaged in edit warring prior to any consensus has been made, and at the time that we are still discussing. You have made bold edits, I have reverted. Now you have to give a few days for the consensus to take place, not to engage in edit warring. Dmatteng (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I made sensible, well-explained edits consistent with the views of one, and in some cases two, other editors on the Talk page. You are the only editor who prefers the - more promotional version of the article.  Moreover, I restored my edits, one time, after you removed them in spite of the emerging consensus that they were fine.  This is not the first time you have bulk-reverted other editors' efforts to tone down the promotional nature of the article.  Tread lightly.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You cannot justify your edit warring by my reverts that were done according to BRD. Please have a patience instead of engaging in edit warring. Dmatteng (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Features section UE Boom
JohnInDC, would you like to turn the section into prose? I would do that, but I'm afraid it may turn out to be promotional, so I would rather not to. I think you can use HTC One as an example. Please see that they put the features in the lead, however since UE Boom is a shorter article, the features shouldn't be in the lead IMO. Dmatteng (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking of doing that. I might roll it into design, which would help with the flow.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to leave it in the same section? That would give some room to expand sections in the future. And, once we would add a new image, and would add some more details in the infobox the article's width would be reduced, so long sections might look too long. The other issue, do you think the ad template is still necessary? I can hardly find any promotional word or sentence, or even a peacock word. If I were to ask you for justification of the ad template, what would you refer to? The features section isn't promotional, it is brief and informative. Dmatteng (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion please? Dmatteng (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Banner
I would like to reply on your talk page re: "I don't really know the history of the prior block, but The Banner's behavior at Talk:UE Boom strikes me as entirely appropriate. My goodness, all he did was comment."

Please check the history of his prior blocks. His comment by itself is okey, but seeing it in the light of the history (of his blocks) makes a huge difference. He wouldn't like to attack me directly because he would be blocked again (for a long time), so I believe he decided to attack me indirectly and via such a way that will win sympathy of some of the editors. I think it was his 'trial ball' and I think he will be stepping up, as even admin HJ Mitchell previously noted that The Banner 'likes' to engage in old rows.

P.S. Would appreciate your reply in the previous section 'UE Boom features'. Dmatteng (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to check the history of his blocks. He's not blocked now and his comment was appropriate.  I suggest you drop the stick and find a better way to occupy your time - JohnInDC (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly that is what I would like to do. However, would you agree (even without checking his block history) that the fact that he was blocked twice very recently with his appeal denied asks for caution. And, the admin who blocked him noted, let me quote: "..wikipedian.. itching to get back into the same old rows and wear their opponents down to the point of submission." Dmatteng (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you read what I said, so I'll repeat it: "He's not blocked now and his comment was appropriate.  I suggest you drop the stick and find a better way to occupy your time."  JohnInDC (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I strongly concur with John here. I've had negative interactions with Banner in the very recent past, but I'm not going to prejudice him for that. He isn't a banned user. It's highly inappropriate to suggest that he be treated as an outlaw merely because of some past indiscretion. As I said in the warning, you should comment on content. If you disagreed with the substance of Banner's comment, that's what you should have commented on. As John and others have said, you are approaching this in precisely the wrong manner. Take a hint and back down. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, no problem. Three experienced editors voiced this opinion and I'll concur. Dmatteng (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Michigan article forward to libraries template removed
Hi JohnInDC, The template I added to the Michigan article external links is a legitimate link to the wikilabs project Forward To Libraries, in an attempt to send users to authoritative resources owned by libraries around the world. Here is the documentation on the project....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Forward_to_Libraries I will be replacing the template back in the article, but I put it in the See Also section. Usually it has been in external links in other articles though. Z[User:Chimp1cards|Chimp1cards]] (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. That's helpful.  The main reason I deleted the link was because it didn't seem to direct the user to anything useful or on point, but rather to a list of the world's libraries.  Perhaps it was just a mistaken parameter or something?  JohnInDC (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * it is a bit confusing in that it sends people to the entire listing of world libraries at first. but, once you indicate which library catalog you claim as your local library, it adds a cookie in your browser and will just point you to that library catalog from then on, unless you indicate you want to search in other libraries. This is a relatively new project, so finding the correct/best placement for the template is still being worked out.   I think after reviewing the process, that See Also section seems to make the most sense..or perhaps a template box in the bibliography.  I'll have to post this concern in the FTL talk page.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  Have a wonderful day :-) Chimp1cards (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that out after a bit. I don't know what control you have over what's shown at the other end but if it could display the parameter being forwarded ("Michigan") at the top of the page, that'd solve 85% of the problem. E.g.,  "Thank you for your inquiry re MICHIGAN.  Click on any of the libraries below to search its collection for topics related to MICHIGAN".  JohnInDC (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
"Please discuss edits in Talk, particularly substantive ones,.."
 * Could you please clarify? It is Mendaliv who has introduced substantive edits without prior discussion. I haven't introduced any edits and merely reverted to the version that was there per our consensus. Then Mendaliv said that I should not blindly apply WP:BRD something I have agreed with and I've retained a number of his edits. Dmatteng (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mendaliv made a series edits one-by-one to the article, explaining each in some detail in edit summary. Your response has been to revert large swaths of his work - if not everything, citing BRD or offering up some completely unhelpful, even misleading, edit summary like "restoring Mendaliv's improvements".  You are not "discussing" but merely disagreeing, and then setting the article back to the way you like it.  If you don't like an edit of his, discuss it.  Do that one by one and see what consensus emerges.  Right now virtually every edit you've made to that article recently has been against consensus, restoring a version that you prefer, and it's getting tiresome.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your claims. Lets go slowly on this.
 * A) Prior to Mendaliv's edits we have had an article per prior consensuses. Yes/no?
 * B) Mendaliv introduced bold edit. It doesn't matter if he did several edits at once or every edit apart. Right/Wrong?
 * C) I have disagreed with his bold edit and reverted. WP:BRD says one can remove bold edits. Yes/No?
 * D) He has said that I reverted blindly, and he was concerned especially about particular things. After that I have taken a better view and reintroduced majority of the particular edits he has mentioned. Yes/No?
 * E) What is more important is that Mendaliv's edits had no prior consensus nor discussion. Agree/Disagree?
 * F) Per WP:BRD it is generally upon the editor who introduced bold edits and got reverted to initiate discussion prior to reintroducing the reverted content. Agree/Disagree?
 * I'm still learning and I have taken note that my understanding of WP:BRD might be somewhat incorrect. Please let me know where I am wrong. Dmatteng (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was reasonably stable previously. Mendaliv made a series of edits that made it better, and he explained each one briefly in an edit summary.  They seemed fine to me and I had no problem with them.  You reverted all of them blindly and without really any discussion (citing BRD), and Banner restored them (implicitly indicating that he preferred the revisions).  It was easy to infer from that that now at least two editors preferred the newer version, but nevertheless you proceeded to revert a subset of them, again citing BRD - not all of the edits but really no less blindly, without any discussion, and with what appeared to be inaccurate (or at least very incomplete) edit summaries.  I again restored Mendaliv's edits - also implicitly indicating that I prefer them too.
 * BRD is not a bludgeon to keep your preferred version in place. You seem to like the B and the R but not so much the D.  Until you get better at the D - as well as develop a better understanding of the proper tone and emphasis of a Wikipedia article - you should forget BRD altogether.  JohnInDC (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that 'improvement' is a subjective word. I do not see removal of content and reliable sources as an improvement. I wish you could have replied per A to F, so that I could see precisely where we disagree. I would like to note, that I haven't reverted his edits to my preferable version. I have reverted it to status quo ante. Mendaliv introduced 16 edits that made distinguishing between them not an easy task. In the process of he had corrected the mobile infobox only to change it completely in the following edits in the same time-frame. I thought it would be much better if he would seek consensus on the talk page prior to introducing such significant change. Dmatteng (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mendaliv is a highly experienced editor with an exceptionally deep and broad understanding of Wikipedia policies and practices. His edits almost always improve an article and I for one am quite content to let him proceed as he sees fit, and until he (by inadvertence or otherwise) introduces a mistake or otherwise plainly degrades the material.  As for A-F, I didn't respond in kind because, as I said, you need to explore different approaches to editing; and my helping you wikilawyer this BRD essay (not even a policy!) is not going to make you a better editor.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I can agree with your description as I have seen this thread. I would like to mention that the infobox has been also accepted at the broader consensus on the article and status quo ante was established with the mobile infobox in it. Dmatteng (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgive my candor, Dmatteng, but you are not in a position to be evaluating the soundness of any other editor's judgment on Wikipedia. You are new to the project and have very few edits to your credit, and what edits you do have reveal that you do not grasp the notions of consensus or discussion - evidenced most obviously by the way that you persist in your positions long after it has become clear that they are failing to gain support.  You argue but do not discuss.  I have lost count of the number of experienced third party editors you have canvassed in the attempt to get them either to weigh in on your side at UE Boom or to reinstate The Banner's block (for frivolous reasons).  None has joined the discussion on your side and at least one has told you that you are misrepresenting what they said, and warned you off of their Talk page.  I have said it before and I will repeat it here - you should take a step back, undertake to learn Wikipedia better by making modest and non-controversial edits in a variety of subject areas, engage in discussion if others push back against your efforts, and then learn to walk away if consensus moves against you.  You can still be a good editor but people are losing patience with your current practices and if you don't come around to a different approach, it is not likely to end well for you.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the topic of my reply was Mendaliv. About myself I think you are right. While I don't think I'm necessarily wrong regarding the content changes, it is certain that I should learn more. English grammar and understanding of a few specific words like ad-hominem is what concerns me most. Dmatteng (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dmatteng, you have only ever been courteous to me and I do think that if you slow down a bit and try to make yourself more familiar with policies here - not so much as they are written but how they play out in practice, you can be a good editor. Your English seems excellent to me and that should not slow you down much.  Stick with it, move gradually, and be patient!  JohnInDC (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers, and I think you have nailed it pretty well with saying: "how they play out in practice". Perhaps a Russian-based mentality, or some other factors make me to expect that things should play out according to what is written (Am I too much of a law-abiding citizen?) I think that might be one of the biggest challenges for me right now. My English is mostly good for communication on the talk pages, but I do somehow get 'writing block' when actually writing an article. I hope I have correctly rated my English ability on my userpage. Dmatteng (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with John, particularly in the point that BRD is not a bludgeon you can use to restore your preferred version and enforce a status quo (presuming what we had could even so be called). From the third paragraph of WP:BRD: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." Further, see WP:BRD-NOT: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Blind reverting is never okay. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Blast from the past
Please see User talk:Dozzzzzzzzzing off, section "Confession" (it's really old news though). You blocked a couple of their socks, including JohnOutsideOfDC. And I'll tell you how I got there--some unsavory comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd been the one to block him - it would have saved me a lot of time in filing sock puppet reports! Thanks for the update.  We'll see how it sorts out, this new leaf of his.  He's turned it over a few times before!  JohnInDC (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Michigan revision
Citing 'recentism,' you deleted the Samuel Ting reference that states that he won the Nobel prize in 1976. Yet further down, several Turing Award winners are listed, who got their awards in 2006, 1982, and 1982. Even the oldest is more recent than C.C. Ting's 1976 award. Ting's story as an alum is especially noteworthy because he came here as an immigrant in his 20s, receiving all of his degrees, 2 undergraduate and 1 graduate, from Michigan. There should probably be more Nobel references in the alumni subheading, as there are for other universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohlalong (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, my mistake - it was hardly recent. I saw the date of the ref and went from there.  Still I don't think it needs to be there.  The narrative list of Michigan graduates - like lists in just about every other major university article - suffers from inclusion creep as editors add, one by one, various accomplished alumni.  On that ground alone I'd still leave it out.  As for the Nobel listees, they are covered at the very top of the list of Michigan alumni, here.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * His story is recounted in the article about him, Samuel C. C. Ting. (Though, that article indicates he was born in Ann Arbor of graduate students from China who met and married there, and who thereafter became college professors in Taiwan.)  JohnInDC (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

bill adler edit
John,

I disagree with your edit. I described as "vague." You described it as "general." Either way, it's not an improvement. I like my original for its specificity. It helps the reader in a way that any headline does, by concisely summarizing the text below. I hope you'll consider restoring my headline.

Illbadler (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's cumbersome, and too detailed for a caption of a section that collects a variety of essentially unrelated ventures and activities. It is a caption, not an index.  Readers who are interested in what specific "other" things you have been up to can easily read the five short paragraphs that make up the section.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: July 2014 - dead links
Thank you for the information, in particular about archive.org. I am now editing the links to point at archive.org. Fleivium (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Doorknob747 is asking for your assistance. Suggestion
I need your help in editing a few pages, sice im not good at editing pages, as you know. I want us to talk on my talk page. Sincerely, Doorknob747 20:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)

I have read the Wikipedia guide lines on how cite sources, what are considered reasonable sources, and what sources are verifiable. Since i want to make sure that I have understood everything properly, i am going to add Suspension Bridge on the lists of what ropes are used for with a citation to a reliable source. Once this is done I will notify and ask you if my edit complies with Wikipedia guidelines. Doorknob747 22:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit has been done, now you can check. If there is a problem then you can tell me and you also can revert my edit. Doorknob747 22:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)

I want to know your views about this article and the problems associated with it, and my comment on the talk page about it. Is there any further steps I should take about the situation and problem about this article, for ex.(notify wikipedia admins, or wikipedia authorities about the problem with this article.) ? Also, from the talk page of the article it can be seen that there are other problems with this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Airport_lounge

18:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Doorknob747
 * The article is not well-sourced but at the same time does not say much that people would disagree with. It's a half-baked article but not so bad as to require deletion.  Maybe it could be trimmed down a bit, I don't know.  Again I would urge you not to learn the rules and policies and then go about looking for things that violate them, but rather, think of ways in which you could improve the encyclopedia by perhaps making explanations clearer or more comprehensive.  Don't edit for its own sake.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey John,
Thanks for your message. I appreciate your desire for disinterestedness. These postings form the combined efforts of several different researchers (posted by me for convenience), and they present a balanced, accurate, and necessary statement of important current events. Our interest in the subject matter does not create conflict, I hope, anymore than a hobbyist who knows and continues to learn about model trains, would be viewed as having a conflict when posting about trains. Fortunately for you, I guess, the mechanics of posting the combined voices of knowledgeable contributors (who took the time to become knowledgeable about the facts out of concern for the issues raised by the previous vandal postings) threaten no conflict. In fact, a balanced presentation (as opposed to the fabrication that had been previously posted) seems like exactly the kind of contribution Wikipedia would welcome! But I am beginning to notice a kind of censor mechanism among wiki regular contributors, like you, for postings that are as thoroughly researched, cited, and verified any postings could possibly be. That you question it is odd, unless you have your own reasons for preferring the hateful postings that had previously vandalized this page and continued to be reposted again and again--until we finally presented a full statement of the "controversy" (not our word; review the history) that another user(s) (review the history) were so insistent had to be addressed. But then a new group of editors stepped in, like you, who simply erase what they do not deem.... what? biographically worthy? Wiki guideline friendly? so informed and accurate it can't be without conflict? Surely, John, the wiki regulars are not so stilted in their thinking about encyclopedic entries that they have come to believe that one that is NOT biased must certainly be posted by someone with a conflict of interest. In that case, you are banning all hobbyists, academics, researchers, and others with acquired knowledge from posting about the very thing they know best based on the premise that if it is thorough, it must be questionable. The ebbs and flows of wiki contributors' commitment to truth and recording events of cultural interest, historical facts, or biography are tenuous indeed. I will continue to revise the posts to better fulfill wiki guidelines. That is certainly a fair request. But the rest of the experience with the wiki community has not demonstrated to us its success as a democratic process but something that in fact approaches the opposite of that. Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roozee (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. But the material that you keep trying to add - so insistently as to violate the "edit war" prohibition - is not even close to acceptable.  It's not sourced, it's personal opinion, it's synthesis, it expresses a distinct point of view.  Three different editors have summarily removed it, and a fourth has opined that the article (what I take to be your autobiography) needs to be rewritten from the ground up.  You are one edit away from being blocked (and really by rights should be already).  If you want to make the case for inclusion of this material on the article's Talk page, feel free.  But you must stop persistently adding it.  It won't succeed, you'll be blocked, and you won't have any input into the process at all.  Read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I've cited above, and which have been posted to your Talk page already.  Until you understand them, as well as the way the encyclopedia is supposed to work, you will meet with nothing but frustration.  Thanks.   JohnInDC (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * An edit war?


 * We did not write this:
 * (cur | prev) 00:16, 26 July 2014‎ Aemathisphd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,391 bytes) (-11,005)‎ . . (Undid revision 618481439 by Roozee (talk) For fuck's sake, would you look at a single article about another person and compare and take this to the Talk page.) (undo)
 * Nor did we remove material or add material that is factually inaccurate.
 * If you have editorial tweaks to make, as some have contributed, that is welcome. But instead you have decided to wipe out the details of this person's work. Commentary on public matters is in fact the job and history of this individual.
 * We can continue working on the other sites we have been updating, as you enjoy the censorship of this page. Please keep it clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roozee (talk • contribs)


 * An edit war is where one editor persists in adding (or removing) the same material repeatedly, without discussion; an editor who makes the same edit more than 3 times in 24 hours (you performed 4 in substantially less) is per se edit warring. You were edit warring and were subject to blocking.  Please read the page that's linked from the warning I left on your Talk page.  The other editor's comments were a breach of Wikipedia's policy of civility, and he should not have done that, but I certainly understand his frustration.
 * More broadly, you misapprehend what Wikipedia is for, or how it works. Wikipedia is not a place for you to articulate or advance your own views, to explain what you really meant when you said "X", or offer your own interpretation of events.  Rather, at Wikipedia, the editors gather pre-existing information from reliable sources and knit the material into - hopefully - concise and useful articles.  "This individual", as you call him, has apparently had a long and successful career in a variety of fields and has made a name for himself - he certainly warrants an article.  However, recently (and perhaps on other occasions, I don't know), he has made statements that have been - well, "criticized" is not too strong a word - by other opinion writers at a variety of well-known and established publications.  Articles properly set forth both the good and the bad,  again - both sides as reported, not as the author of the statements would like them to be understood.  Again I urge you to undertake some basic research into the tenets and policies of Wikipedia.  Until you do I'm afraid your observations and complaints about others' editing of articles are not going to gain much traction.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I hope that your use of the first person plural to describe your actions is just rhetorical and that there is just one person responsible for the user account Roozee. The rules prohibit account sharing.  See NOSHARE.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI regarding the conduct of the IP editor 203.217.29.182
You appear to have participated in some recent discussion of the conduct of the IP editor 203.217.29.182, who seems to show a tendency to want to add a country identification to the names of U.S. places such as Chicago, Illinois. You are hereby invited to participate in a further discussion of this topic that I have begun at WP:ANI. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw your note on the IP Talk page. Thanks for the head's-up.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already sorted out the ANI thread. As I noted, continued removal of context is disruptive, as not all readers are Americans.  Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a non sequitur. The issue is not whether a location, absent more, is presumptively in the United States (i.e. US-centrism), but whether a location - be it in the U.S., Canada, England, Australia - or, well, anywhere - is so well known to English speakers that further clarification is unnecessary.  In the case of U.S. states, I do not think further clarification is routinely necessary - particularly since the state is invariably wikilinked for the convenience of one who is not sure where, e.g., California or Texas might be.  It's not worth arguing the point further but you have not convinced me that you're correct.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Rivalries" that aren't really rivalries . . ..
JIDC, I am contemplating filing AfDs for the following CFB rivalry articles:

1. Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry‎;

2. Kentucky–Vanderbilt football rivalry;

3. LSU–Mississippi State football rivalry; and

4. Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry.

I don't think they satisfy the general notability guidelines or the definition of a traditional college "rivalry." What's your reaction? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that to warrant an article, a collected sequence of games between a particular set of teams has to amount to more than just - I don't know, two teams that have been in the same conference a long time. None of these seem particularly noteworthy, though I can't claim any deep knowledge of these schools.  Do you have a particular definition of "rivalry" in mind, or is it just the sense (which I share) that whatever it is, these aren't that?  I would weigh in on any AfD you might file, as I just did above, but they'd go more smoothly if there were something more objective to point to!  JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NRIVALRY states that no rivalry is inherently notable, and must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The gloss on that, which most long-time CFB editors have accepted, is that the series most be notable as a rivalry, not just as a long-time series.


 * Several of us have been contemplating culling the CFB rivalry herd for a while, and a list is being compiled. Got any other suggestions?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for that link. That makes it much easier, and you can count me in.  I don't have any candidates in mind - my personal interests are pretty parochial and so I wouldn't be likely to notice if a particular article was insufficiently notable; but let me know when you start filing the AfDs and I'll be happy to comment!  JohnInDC (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's two to start: (1) Articles for deletion/Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry; and (2) Articles for deletion/Mississippi State - Vanderbilt football rivalry. I went for some low-hanging fruit first: these series satisfy no one's definition of a college rivalry game.  More to come in days ahead.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the project page and spare you the trouble of adding more here. JohnInDC (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

ND-MSU CFB
JohnInDC - Thanks for your understanding of my rv of your rv of the series record. I realized that you were reverting a number of stubbornly incorrect edits to other series records by a particular editor, but I hadn't the space in the edit summary to say so. In this one case, Traegansieber was correct, though in error in nearly every other unsourced change s/he made. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You got it exactly. I figure if he's wrong 85% of the time, revert them all, and someone responsible will in turn correct me.  It's way too time-consuming to check his edits against the sources.  Anyhow I don't know whether it's laziness or efficiency that drives this strategy but by and large it works!  See you around, and thanks -  JohnInDC (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-Vector: Conflict of interest explanation
I have made a bunch of edits of using language templates in some articles. Knowing that other users wouldn't support the uses of these templates. What happened was other users remove this from these articles. So I felt there is no need to use these templates in articles and then remove it. I do not know it is conflict of interest, neutral point of view, or other guideline use. The problem is most users are not aware of using language template. I am confused about this whether the language templates apply to foreign names of the college, not the motto, or either both.Wiki-Vector (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also commented on your Talk page but will note here too that you should stop making these wholesale changes until you better understand, or can better explain, why you are making them. JohnInDC (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Evans
No worries at all. My main concern was not with who did the edits but that someone might feel that they were being ignored or shouted down. At this point it think its obvious we are all acting in good faith and any objections can be handled in the same spirit. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the sourcing, by the way. Thanks for your good work! Bonewah (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Next round of proposed CFB "rivalry" articles for AfD review
Head's up: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Your input is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Spamlinks
Hello, and thanks for pointing them out. I'm already on it, as per User talk:MER-C. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Michigan deletion assessment
Your input would be helpful and welcome at User:Cbl62/Michigan deletion candidates. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding reverts at GeForce 900 series
I was editing the article about the newly-released GeForce 900 series, and noticed that you reverted some edits by the Malaysian IP editor that has annoyed both of us in the past. I noticed that ClueBot NG first reverted this editor, and then the IP editor reverted back. You reverted the article back. I checked the reverts and the one by ClueBot NG appeared to be a false positive and then reported it to the bot's administrator. I felt your reverts may have been mistaken. I am just letting you know about what I found. Thank you. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just now noticed that you started reverting another IP that the IP hopper used, probably because the user was hurting the pages on the GeForce 500 through 800 series. I can now see why you made those reverts on the 900 series even though the edits turned out to be not vandalism on that page only but were vandalism on the other pages. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping on the GeForce 500 to 800M series pages. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm sorry that I sucked in a couple of good edits along with my reverts!  JohnInDC (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Could we request that the GeForce 900 series page be unprotected to the protecting admin due to what you and the bot thought were vandalism but were not? The rest should stay semiprotected, of course. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it took my a day or two to respond - I was on the road and when I edit with an iPad I always bungle something so I try to avoid it! Anyhow - this is fine with me and I'm glad you went forward and asked.  We'll see if it's a mistake or not, I guess!  JohnInDC (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

List of most consecutive games scoring in NCAA football
My edits on this article were to make it more up to date, and add the much-needed years that went with the streaks. You were right about the NCAA having Michigan's streak wrong, but since we're saying that the table is correct "As of January 22, 2014", then UM's streak needs to be remain listed as active until the end of the season, unless of course you want to update the table every week, and change the date. Kobra98 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

University of Michigan
The CSG section appears to be out of date. I've made several attempts to update this section, but these attempts are usually not sufficient to overcome your heavy-handed edits. Can you contact CSG (probably via Bobby Dishell) and request more recent information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.236.18 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not the "CSG article" and recent CSG activities should be mentioned there only if they're important matters, not just "what CSG has been up to lately". I will see about weaving in the stadium thing, probably writing it in a way that does not detail the dispute (which is trivial) but instead emphasizes the role of CSG in helping resolve it.  Otherwise, I'm sorry that you consider my edits "heavy handed".  It helps, when you add material, to explain what you're hoping to do, maybe in the edit summary.  That helps other editors understand what you're trying to accomplish, and makes it easier for them to work with you.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)