User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 13

Hasty reversion to Jack Evans (D.C. politician)
Hi. Could you please explain your cursory deletion of these important updates?

Before my edits, it did not reflect the fact that he has left his position at Squire Patton Boggs:


 * Old:, Evans received $190,000 in yearly compensation from Squire Patton Boggs in addition to his $125,000 council salary. http://dcist.com/2013/06/jack_evans_launches_2014_mayoral_ca.php During his time on the D.C. Council, Evans also worked as an insurance executive for Central Benefits Mutual Insurance Co., a position that paid $50,000 a year.


 * New:, Evans received $190,000 in yearly compensation from Squire Patton Boggs in addition to his $125,000 council salary, though the position ended when the firm merged in 2015.  http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2015/06/01/jack-evans-full-time-councilmember/


 * He began practicing law in Washington, D.C. at the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Division of Enforcement and  was  an of counsel attorney at the Squire Patton Boggs law firm.

Before, it did not reflect that his relationship with his wife has ended.


 * Old: Over the next seven years, Evans raised his triplets and on September 18, 2010, he married Michele Price, a former staffer of late Wyoming Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop.


 * New: Over the next seven years, Evans raised his triplets and on September 18, 2010, he married Michele Price, a former staffer of late Wyoming Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop.  The couple's split was reported in February 2015. 

Before, it did not reflect any of his history with parking violations and abuse


 * Evans has been noted for his tendency to park illegally and questioned for potential abuse of parking privileges.  His tickets were dismissed because he claimed he was on official business.

This content is well-sourced and relevant. Would you please self-revert, or at a minimum, provide a better justification than "this is silly stuff, gossipy and hyper local". I do not think that characterization is appropriate for articles in the Washington Post, Fox News, and CBS. Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Refs:
 * It is well sourced, perhaps, but barely relevant, except as snark. I agree that if he no longer has his job at Patton, that should be noted.  But the salary - now his former salary (and a private one to boot, not even taxpayer funded) isn't much relevant to anything.  He doesn't even earn it any more.  Second.  The fact that he and his wife appear to be no longer living together - not divorced, just "split" -  is relevant to - what?  It's trivial, personal, not-really-anyone's-business information.  It's gossip, even if the Post did devote three whole sentences to it back in February.  If / when they're divorced, then we can cap this section with, "... and the couple has since divorced".  And finally - parking tickets.  I think the burden is on you to explain why parking tickets - sourced or not - rise to such a level of importance that they need to be included in an encyclopedia article.  (I note too that they were all dismissed.)  We've had this discussion many times before - just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it's appropriate for inclusion.  I stand by my assessment that this material (other than his job change) is trivial, gossipy and hyperlocal.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I revised it to reflect his (un)employment with the law firm, and left in the salary information since the balance of the paragraph seems to focus so much on his salaries as it is. The current state of his relationship with his spouse and his minor - and officially forgiven - scofflaw tendencies can stay out.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point about his relationship status is reasonable; even though it has been published in the Washington Post, it doesn't say he's been divorced. Though I don't understand your deletion of the parking tickets text and references. I don't think its up to us to decide whether or not parking tickets are notable. If its generating such an abundance of media attention, clearly it is of public interest. It is uncertain exactly how the tickets were handled - if you read the coverage, you'll see the conflicting explanations between Evans and the DMV about their dismissal. More importantly, Other DC Councilmembers have this topic included in their entries. I don't know how to appropriately wordsmith this, but there's no doubt it deserves inclusion. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is precisely our job to decide what, of all sourced material in the world there is about a subject, to include or not to include. We are "editors", not "aggregators".  Evans parks illegally.  Let's just postulate that.  He parks illegally.  This is trivial by any definition, even if local outlets pick up the thread from time to time.  Conversely, if we're going to add "parking issues" to the article on Evans, shouldn't we make sure that all the council members' parking transgressions are reported here?  See http://dcist.com/2015/03/dc_politicians_worst_parking_jobs_r.php ; http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/09/18/the-d-c-councils-parking-scofflaws-now-on-instagram/ ; http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26228273/dmv-dismisses-all-of-dc-councilmember-yvette-alexanders-unpaid-parking-tickets .  This is all just silliness.  (Incidentally, I'm going to move this entire thing to the article Talk page, where others may see the discussion and weigh in.)  JohnInDC (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, would you be willing to take a look at the Jack Evans page again? Bangabandhu and I seem to be engaged in a small edit war, and I believe an arbitrator is necessary. Thanks. Anonymouse202 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm on the road, so it's not very easy for me to edit; but I will contribute as I can. JohnInDC (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Care to handle the AIV while I keep cleaning up after this person? &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. JohnInDC (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 20:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin Legislators
I look at the Wisconsin Legislators after John Dunn and there was no problems with the citations. Packerfansam would use the same Wisconsin Blue Book citation and started articles using the same source. The last four articles you mentioned to Packerfamsam that had incorrect references were the only articles that had incorrect references. I am mystified about Packerfansam removing political affliations from the Wisconsin Legislators articles and I did asked Packerfansam why this was happening. Packerfansam also mention some health issues in the user page. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that. I took a quick stab at one of them and failed completely.  I agree that Packersfanam is hard to figure at this point - he really seems to have gone off the rails (though I can't say I am that familiar with his earlier editing).  The combination of ineptitude and political & religious bias may do him in, I'm afraid.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi-I checked the Wisconsin Legislators articles and the references from the Wisconsin Blue Book are correct. You need to look what Wisconsin county in the article the legislator came from and then scrolled to that county in the citation and the legislator would be there. Packerfansam used the same Wisconsin Blue Book citations for Wisconsin Legislators who were in office during a certain year. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What I could do is add the page number to the citation of the Wisconsin Blue Book being used-that would be easier for everyone. Packerfansam should had added the page numbers to the citation-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Packerfansam
Thought you might be interested in this edit. 32.218.36.31 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Missed that. Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And another one: 32.218.36.31 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This might interest you. 32.218.41.143 (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At some point it will be worth returning to ANI but when I go, I would like a good list of biased edits to avoid the suggestion again of "overzealousness".  This is helpful.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Platsis Symposium
Okay, so you didn't like the edit and you deleted it because it belongs somewhere else. So, do you have any suggestions? What about a "See Also" category that the Platsis symposium was once a program at UofM? Is that possible?WHEELER (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose - though it still strikes me as a pretty minor event, being linked not because it's important to a fuller understanding of the university but rather instead just to cure the orphan problem. I also think it'd look pretty lonely there by itself.  But I do agree that that's a better place for it - take a look at Manual_of_Style/Layout and see what you might be able to do with it.  Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How about a "Past and Present Programs sponsored by UofM" as a section? I like that. WHEELER (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Give it a shot - but add some others, eh? JohnInDC (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I will have to do research and find more before I edit. Thanks.WHEELER (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Legitimate Information
Hi JohnInDC, I've noticed that you have deleted most of the contributions I've made yesterday. To be honest, I've been terribly disappointed on what you have done. At first, when I checked the page of Jose Miguel Arroyo again, the former First Gentleman, I've noticed that the Honour section disappeared so I checked the other member of the Arroyo family and it disappeared too. I doubted you actually as a protector of the Arroyo family. Silly me. But then when I checked the other pages as well you have removed them all.

First, allow me to inform you that I'm just a new contributor here at the Wikipedia so I am not fully aware of the rules and regulations here. I only intend to provide contribution on the Honour section of every people I have known. I get most of the information from the official website of the Office of the President - Malacañan Palace and the Embassy of Spain to the Philippines. As you have said before, my contributions didn't appear constructive, bit implausible and I didn't provide sourcing. I admit that I am wrong in the part of disregarding the sourcing because I assume that putting the complete date is enough to prove it legitimate but in your view it isn't. Also, you've deleted some of my contributions which I have actually corrected because it is improper. I didn't intend to make fun here on Wikipedia just to provide unrealistic information. I hope that before you deleted these information, you also did some research on these things so we can help each other as well.

In my perspective, putting the Honour section on people who receive orders and decorations from the state should be provided here in Wikipedia since we 'honor' this people and they deserve the recognition from the people.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me of the importance of sourcing. I highly appreciate it. Next time I will do the proper way but please notify me when you remove again some of my contributions because I spent hours yesterday and it's frustrating to learn that it ended up deleted. I believe that no other people would spend some time again researching and made some efforts to put the honours over and over again.

Sincerely,

theimperialduke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theimperialduke (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The information was fine. It just needs to have sources.  Most of these awards are not well known outside of their home countries, and it would be easy either to 1) make up a whole bunch of stuff or 2) get a few of them wrong by accident - and other editors would have no way of knowing.  It's particularly an issue when a single anonymous editor comes in and starts making changes - it's really hard to distinguish that from simple mischief!  If you provide sources I won't remove any of the material (though I'm am still not sure about the proper use of those icons - you should go read WP:FLAGICON for more on that.)  Thanks for the note!  JohnInDC (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I am now enlightened with this matter. Many thanks! With regards to the flag icons, I've just noticed that it is inconsistently done on every pages and each honour section have different patterns as well so whenever I put the detail, I just patterned on what is written. By the way, when I cite the source, is it okay if I just put solely the website of the page and not put too much detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theimperialduke (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to link to something that shows that this person was presented with this award. The precise dates are helpful, but not as important as providing a specific source.  There isn't much question in most cases that these awards exist - the real issue is, who has received them?  How do we know?  The best source would be a site belonging to the awarding entity that lists the recipient(s).  Next best would be a listing by a disinterested third party that has compiled a list of recipients.  Third best - and perhaps not sufficient in some cases - would be a claim by the recipient themselves that they've received the award.  Particularly if that is the only evidence that they did, in fact, get such an award.  People make things up!  JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your help with a disruptive editor. 32.218.34.166 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI
32.218.45.136 (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD for UConn/UCF football "rivalry"
There is a pending Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion regarding the purported 2-game rivalry between UConn and UCF: Articles for deletion/Civil Conflict (college football game). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that, thanks. Ordinarily you and I are on exactly the same page but I'm not sure about this one - it's no "rivalry", that's for sure, but the Connecticut coach did assign a name to it, and it was covered, and - I dunno.  Maybe that's a bit too flash-in-the-pan for an article today.  Let me think about it.  Thanks for the note in any event; I appreciate your keeping me in the loop on things like this.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this our buddy?
Could this be the One Whose Name We Shall Not Mention: ? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had the same thought, what with the monomaniacal editing. But:  the account dates to 2010 - it's not just some burner; there aren't (that I can see) any tell-tale edits in certain other areas; and, finally - Talk page engagement!  Not to say that I'm right, or that he isn't often disruptive; but at the moment this is more like a platypus than a duck!  JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind me butting in here, JohnInDC, but I was just getting ready to ask you about this user because he's starting to be a nuisance (my opinion). I've been dealing with him for a while now. He focuses primarily on colors for professional sports teams. This user goes off of what his computer program says the colors are in the logo and that is how he determines the colors. When others revert his edits and say otherwise (see Miami Marlins for more) he is adamant that his colors are correct, even if several others disagree and show multiple sources for their colors. He also will re-add color schemes to navboxes after his edits were reverted the first time for contrast issues. (Template:San Francisco 49ers is just one example.) He reminds me of the ArmandoBecker user who was blocked (as you should know). Corkythe   hornetfan  08:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He does remind me of Armando and his predecessors. He's got the same fixation on color, and doggedness.  Still I struggle with the collateral habits, where I don't see much overlap.   What's the tool that lets you compare the overlap of one editor's work with another?  That might prove useful, by turning up commonalities that are easy to miss in eyeballing several thousand edits.  Also I wonder how this guy's editing pattern (it goes in spurts) compares with prior blocks?  JohnInDC (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py  A bit of overlap between the new guy and Armando but not much else (again, in a sort of cursory search).  JohnInDC (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling with this one. Content-wise, there's very little light between the puppets and this editor.  But nothing else seems to fit - the user we're discussing is nothing but sports, sports, sports - and one or two South Park episodes (at least one of those involving sports).  At least, that's what I saw when I went back maybe 2,500 or 3,000 edits.  There's almost no article overlap between this editor and the socks; conversely there's a lot of temporal overlap - the only one I found where a sock seemed to step in for this editor was here.  Again I didn't go back to the dawn of time, or compare everyone to everyone, but in all the prior puppetry cases, the identity of the underlying editor pretty much leapt out after just a minute or two.  I'm not saying that it's impossible, but if this editor is also a puppet, he's done a really thorough job, for 5 years, of camouflaging himself.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this situation, JIDC. I watched the previous sock for several weeks before I was convinced. If it's associated with a central Florida IP address, this is almost certainly our guy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI: He is an Idaho State University graduate... see this for more. He posted that link in a section on my talk page. I know that Bagumba and Jrcla2 have dealt with this user as well, so they might have some input. Corkythe   hornetfan  01:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on his edits, but I suspect that ultimately his disruption and persistence may have to be addressed on its own terms and not as a matter of block evasion. (The apparent fact that he's from, and in, Idaho is another factor that seems to set him apart from our Florida-based puppet master.)  JohnInDC (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. I'm sure he isn't ArmandoBecker nor DragoLink08, based on the above evidence. It doesn't surprise me that another user would be so sports-colors-centric though because it seems like a pretty easy thing for a rabid sports fan / casual Wikipedia editor to hook onto. Do I think Charlesaaronthompson should chill out and respect what all of the sports' WikiProjects have established as consensus? Yes. And I also feel that he should be temporarily blocked if he continues despite warnings about his behavior. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

List of association football clubs by revenue
Hi John, thank you for your response. Please have a little patience, I'm adding sources as soon as possible, it won't take very long. Check out this page, here you can find official sources for almost all the included clubs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stadiumhopper (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

William Lorge
Your actions to the account William Lorge is obscured and immature. The sources for each election result is valid and genuine. Don't take authority on someone's page even when you shouldn't. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartvoter2006 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't "your" page, and, as a relative (or the subject himself) you shouldn't really be editing if at all. Making a page look good so you can link it from your own business website is an abuse if the encyclopedia JohnInDC (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your remarks are from another topic of William Lorge. You are breaking the morale of Wikipedia by not allowing valid information of his past election results being put into his page. And as a matter of fact, I don't even know William Lorge. Wikipedia would want you to stop your immature behavior on behalf of his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartvoter2006 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive my skepticism, but your account was created just hours after User:RobertGeraldLorge was blocked for making legal threats; every single edit you have made here, save one, are to a Lorge page or add information about a Lorge; and you have repeatedly uploaded (copyrighted) photographs of Lorges. It's - unlikely that you don't know William Lorge.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you think the valid information about the "Lorge's" is not applicable for their page. I agree about the copyright with the picture, but you have no right to delete the election result boxes. Just give me one good reason why I shouldn't be able to have the election results on and then I will stop. Just because you're an administrator, doesn't mean you should get drunk with power. Please consider all of the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartvoter2006 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator, just an editor like most everyone else here. The difference between me and you is that I have read and try to adhere to Wikipedia policies, and do not edit pages of people whom I know or am related to.  I gave several good reasons for removing the election results - they are upwards of two decades old, they're cherry-picked to show only the wins, and they add little useful information inasmuch as we already know that the subject won all those elections, seeing as he was in office for a decade.  Oh and too, the subject of the article not coincidentally displays two (2!) links to the Wikipedia article from his business web page, giving him or people working on his behalf an extrinsic reason - something other than a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia - to lard up the article with favorable information.  So that's four good reasons.  I also gave them on the article Talk page, which you can find here.  That's where this discussion should continue.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you're not a fan of William Lorge. You're probably a Democrat. I don't know what you mean by cherry picking because other editors mentioned his losses. I understand that you're trying to act like your following the book, but you're obviously a hypocrite. If your an editor, you would've dropped this by now. You obviously have hatred to Lorge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartvoter2006 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I let you have the last word, can we end this? JohnInDC (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll end this as soon as you let righteousness take its toll and have the TRUE facts on William Lorge's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartvoter2006 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By letting there be election results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartvoter2006 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by discussion and consensus. If you want to make a case for including these results, you should take it up on the article Talk page, to which you've been directed repeatedly by both me and by other editors on this page, on your Talk page, and in edit summaries on the article. In my view, the results are stale, incomplete, trivially informative, and to all appearances put in place not to improve the encyclopedia but to burnish the reputation of the subject. Others may disagree however, and the way to find that out is to discuss it; and if at the end of the day they agree with you then the results will go back in. So, again, please go to Talk:William_Lorge and make your case for including the results. Before you do, it would be very helpful if you were to review Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest and neutral point of view. Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Best practices for editors with close associations have a lot of well-summarized information and advice. Civility and assume good faith are good ones too. Name-calling isn't persuasive. Reasoned, principled and neutrally-stated discussion is more effective in my view. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This link too: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.  While you may or may not be editing an autobiography, that essay contains a lot of helpful information about how attempting to promote someone or enhance their reputation through a Wikipedia article can backfire.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let freedom ring John and prove you're not a robot and that that you're American. Americans are proud, brave, etc. What you are doing is not following the code. Take this all in and think to yourself; is this what I want to be? A robot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.252.37 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey Edits
Hello JohnInDC, I'm trying to open a dialogue as to why this edit is redundant. I want to make sure the page reflects that Mr. Bailey pioneered the use of ILSA in NYC in this manner. Sure other attorneys in the US had used ILSA (Florida, Virginia & Arizona) before, but Mr. Bailey had been the first to effectively use this FEDERAL LAW in light of the financial crisis in NEW YORK CITY. I've got the facts and unfortunately for you they don't lie, if you've accomplished something like this I'm sure you'd appreciate having it be reflected on your Wikipedia page. I'm more than willing to work with the language if that is your issue with these edits.

Here is an article that reflect him being the first by The Real Deal, which last I checked was a reputable source for real estate news both in New York City and Florida. Take a look for yourself in the 9th paragraph http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/09/27/house-passes-bill-loosening-ilsa-requirements/

Here is another article which can be found on The Real Deal that recognizes Mr. Bailey as having "pioneered" (not my words) the use of ILSA like this in NYC. Take a look at the 8th paragraph http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/09/19/senate-votes-to-strike-down-ilsa-requirements-for-condos/
 * Since this page was created, associates and confederates of Bailey have periodically sprouted up to ensure that the article portrays him in the best possible light, with the highest praise accorded him. Your edits are but another example.  The ILSA cases represent an interesting and (briefly) successful application of a law in a way that was surely never intended when it was enacted.  Kudos to Bailey for his crafty use of the law.  However since Congress closed the loophole, the list of such cases will grow no more, and can only grow less important and less relevant as time goes by.  In your enthusiasm to ensure that Bailey was fully credited with this strategy, you added language identifying him as the first to use it, without removing subsequent, existing language that likewise noted that the case he tried was the first to employ it.  I undid this redundant edit but another IP - like you, locating to NY - quickly reverted me, which is typical of these Bailey-related episodes.  In response, I moved your language directly crediting Bailey to the latter spot, while toning it down a bit (being "the first" to "pioneer" something lays it on a bit heavy, plus is itself redundant).  Whether Bailey "would appreciate" particular language is entirely beside the point, and I hope you'll back off your efforts to promote the man, which is of course not the purpose of the encyclopedia at all.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your desire to "improve" the page but removing information solely because you're opinion is that these awards are not credible or notable is not sufficient. As I have asked, please support your edits with research, I will not make any changes for the next 24hrs. Hopefully by then you and Theroadislong will have come back with proof of how or why these awards should not be included. As I've mentioned before if the issue is language then lets work that out instead of just removing it based on opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHFkRyan (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * it's not opinion. I demonstrated on the article Talk page how the source fails to support the claim you make for it. Which is BTW where this conversation should continue. JohnInDC (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Tinkering, again
Are y'all keeping an eye on this: ? Looks like an awful lot of team colors have been "updated" in the last few days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can introduce you to Dan Metzheiser from Justice. He's got a file on DragoLink08 in DC. It's been a hobby of his for a while.   A lot of guys equate him to that reporter on The Incredible Hulk. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been a very long time since I could sit still to watch any of the old Bill Bixby/Lou Ferigno episodes, so the reference is lost on me. I would be interested in talking to Dan at some point -- is he tracking DragoLink on Wikipedia or elsewhere?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, the reference is not to The Incredible Hulk. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been out of town and not very active the past couple weeks, so I haven't been following him. My main - problem is that while I'm pretty good at spotting & reporting socks, I don't know so much about college color schemes and feel a bit poorly equipped, on substance, to know whether his edits are good, bad or just neutral.  I can't believe that every one of his edits actually fixes something, but I can't tell the wheat from the chaff -  JohnInDC (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We need to get some WP:NBA and WP:College basketball eyes on this ASAP.  Some -- or event most -- of these edits may be constructive, but I get very nervous when I see a relatively unknown editor altering the color schemes for multiple teams and templates in a very short period of time.  I think all of these color schemes should be comprehensively reviewed and updated, and thereafter I think the color modules should be locked.  I note, here, that the user in question is editing mostly at the template level, and that needs to be addressed, too.  Someone needs to have all of these navboxes, infoboxes and other team templates watch-listed.  We should not have to re-fight these battles every time DragoLink re-appears, or some other newbie decides to start "updating" the team colors; these should not require an "update" more than once a year for each sport or league, and the updates, if any, should be uniform across all templates for a given team.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we get you guys to review these recent colors changes? Who else from the basketball projects should be involved in monitoring changes of team colors?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They make me nervous too so I think it's a good idea to get some experienced eyes on them. Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know the hex colors well enough to know if the changes are technically correct or are the subtle signs of a potential DragoLink08 sockpuppet. I've noticed this user as well. I'll keep an eye on him too. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Listen Mr. John in Dc.

1) I am frustrated with the reverts of the pages of the MLS clubs that I have been investing time on to not only make the pages at the best to the other Major Sport Leagues in America which includes NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB.

2) I am from Maryland, not far from where your username states. I am American. Using plural for the franchise is not British or whatever but it is used for all the franchise in the NFL, go look at them.

3) Who is to say you're right, you better hope your not British. Bluhaze777 (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are frustrated, but in North American English, teams or clubs take the singular verb, not the plural as is the general case in British English. I directed you to the Wikipedia page that states precisely that, so please don't argue about it.  (The NFL teams use the plural because the team name is a plural noun - e.g., "Lions", "Patriots" - not because the term is generically plural.  There aren't too many examples of non-plural names in the NFL or Major League Baseball, but the NHL's Minnesota_Wild, by way of counterexample, properly uses the singular form.)  So - please do not persist in changing the MLS pages to the wrong variation of English.  It's disruptive, and eventually, blockable.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Naked Communist revert
JohnInDC this is Hawljo, Why did delete my edit on The Naked Communist? You stated that my edit was “far to lengthy.” Please show me the Wiki policy the backs up your claim and limit’s the size of an edit. The content of my edit is brief, accurate, factual and pertinent to the book. (21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
 * Your lengthy, copy-and-paste addition from the Congressional Record has been reverted four times by three different, experienced editors. (And by rights you should already be blocked for edit warring.)  If you have questions about it, you should take them to the article's Talk page, here.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Utah Jazz
Utah Jazz have been "are" for years and years. just let sleeping dogs lie on it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Letting sleeping dogs lie" is interesting advice coming from the one who pointedly changed the verb to "is" and then, having found himself on the wrong side of an argument elsewhere, just as pointedly changed it back. As I noted in each of the edit summaries, and to you separately, MOS:PLURALS provides that, in U.S. English, the verb accompanying a sports team generally follows the nominal number of the team's name.  So - "Washington Redskins are"; "Minnesota Wild", "DC United" or "Utah Jazz" "is".  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding
Per:WP:WIKIHOUNDING

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? I offered useful advice concerning recent edits you made - I didn't revert or change your edits at all, but rather completed the appropriate, albeit incomplete, task you had undertaken. It wasn't disruptive but rather, *con*structive. The encyclopedia is better for your effort plus mine.  Now - whether you take the advice is up to you. But don't complain to me about "hounding" you when all I did was finish something you started, and observe to you that it would have been better if you'd done it yourself. Thanks for the note. JohnInDC (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)