User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 2

So why do you show such great intrest in the continuation war article?
And with this intresst why do delet the sentence about the Soviet air attacks that started the war? What is controversial about that? I feel that your deleting is very controverisel on the subject.--Posse72 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You requested Editor Assistance on the article here. I reviewed the (extensive) material you were trying to introduce and concluded that it was not appropriate to Wikipedia for the reasons (among others) I stated in my edit summary; so I removed it.  Your persistent reintroduction of material that you concede to be controversial is problematic and you really need to air these issues on the Talk page before reintroducing it.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well some guy think the opning shots of the war uis cotroversial and remove it, and you assist that guy!? Maube we should remove the whole section of the airwar of the first gulf war, because someone feels its right. And if you dont know a very much of the article you edit, how can you then decieded what controversial and un truth?????????????????--Posse72 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to know what is accurate and what is not. What I do know is that a 14,000 character addition, wholly unsourced, plainly reflecting the user's POV, and written in marginal English is not material that can simply be left in Wikipedia on that user's say-so.  Again this entire issue is something that needs to be raised on the Talk page of the article itself, not all about Wikipedia on User Talk pages and elsewhere.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if that the way to go maybe Killing vector should have done just that before removing 1/8 of the article among important issue as the Soviet opening attack?--Posse72 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps; but the failure of another editor to act responsibly does not excuse one's own similar failure. The best practice in Wikipedia is to take the high road - responding to unreasonableness with reasonableness; to incivility with civility; to persistent reverts with discussion or an appeal to other editors.  An even temperament and manifest efforts to be fairminded will carry substantial weight with other editors.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex Levy & socks
It occurs to me that if this fellow shows up again, as he no doubt will, it might be worth initiating a request at WP:AN for a formal site ban. The previous results at WP:SSP, along with the block page at the French Wikipedia, would make for a persuasive case, I think. If we can get a consensus to ban him, new socks can be blocked by any administrator without going through SSP, and any edits by his socks and IPs can be reverted on sight. What do you think? Deor (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. I don't know much (anything) about the process but whatever weight I can add to what (ahem) you do, I'd be happy to!  JohnInDC (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you seem more on top of his edits than I am, though I have a few of his common targets watchlisted. If you notice any new edits, let me know on my talk page, and I'll try initiating a discussion at AN. Deor (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Deal. JohnInDC (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed his first edit (for obvious reasons) and was going to check later to see whether he continued. I'm going to let him dig a bit deeper hole, then probably take it to AN. Deor (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I get home this evening, I'll post something to AN. I don't really know whether a ban request has any hope of success, but it won't hurt to try. Deor (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here's my feeble effort. Nothing to do but see what comes of it, I guess. Deor (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, hacker Albert Gonzalez (pronounce it with your tong between your lips twice) on board. What about talking about that AlexLevyOne Sockpuppetry affair that seems to present a few interesting NAZI coordination (articles around Tarantino Inglorious Basterds coming back a lot, often transition with vinking poems, and bot analysis around Washington constant wars going on. I bet my left arm I found the bottom of the well here . Regards. Albert Gonzalez (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Michele Renouf
Hi John, sentences like the ones you added/restored ("As a highlight of her career in landscape design"; "Thus after a lifetime's international career as a photographic model and actress in television commercials, Lady Renouf has found herself by default on the other side of the camera"...) are completely POV and also unsourced. You are doing Wikipedia a great disservice by promoting Michele's Weltanschauung like this. --RCS (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case you wonder: is not me, neither am i him. --RCS (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The thought had not crossed my mind! JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!
This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, what's up?
Is there a reason you reverted out mhy talk page message to Mayalld here? I am reverting it back in, presumin g it was an accident on your part. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was, so sorry - I have no idea how I managed that! JohnInDC (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries - I do that sometimes, too. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolverine
Now why would I vandalize such a wonderful venue of information? Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine420 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Michigan-Ohio State rivalry
I'm trying to show all national titles won by both Michigan and Ohio State. Please come up with a way to show the total national titles. Please keep my edits that show how many BCS, Coaches', and AP championships Michigan and Ohio State have won.

Stop trying to hide the fact that Ohio State has AP, Coaches' and BCS Championships. The generic "national championships" does not showcase what Ohio State has done the last 50 years and it highlights Michigan's 10 national titles won before 1950. Feel free to show the 11 national titles from Michigan but I'm going to keep editing back the major Ohio State championships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hut (talk • contribs) 04:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion to Editor Assistance in Error!
Oops! You're exactly right. I was thinking that was the actual page for the edit to have been on and it would have to be reverted due to the general policy of not editing your own page(s). Sorry about that, I would have undid it, but it seems you already did. I can sometimes get 'too' aggressive and I really really try to go back and fix any/all errors I make. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! e0steven (☎Talk|✍Contrib) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor assistance/Requests
Saw you reversion - good call. I think it was deleted as part of a rather over-enthusiastic vandalism patrol that led to a report at WP:AIV, which I have commented upon. – ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, as per the above message. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello mister John
I dont know why you revert my edits on Copenhagen ? you revert all my edits, but you dont let me know why, what I've done to Copenhagen is only adding images in the right section and enlarge some sections, because they are too small, I hope its ok mister :-)Wow Scotland ! (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained my reversion on your Talk page and in the edit summary. You did much more than add images in the right sections - you changed large swaths of text, added photos and resized them.  The text flows very poorly through the page after your edits and the article is worse, not better, for them.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have in turn reverted your reversion. It is impolite and counterproductive to the project to revert wholesale an entire series of edits and remove additions of sourced content of edits because of minor problems with style and layout. I suggest that instead you edit the new version of the article in order to incorporate both the new text added by wowscotland and your preferences for prose flow and image size.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Discussion continues here.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

State recognized tribes
Whoops, sorry. I was editing the exact same time you were and didn't mean to leave that first sentence in. Thanks for removing it. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

DC United
After I edited the page I was informed the info was incorrect and I retracted it on my own. Thank you for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper50 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

my comments on Suai Kee
Hi, this is about ur message asking me to put my comments on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suai_Kee page. I thought I was doing that but obviously there is something I am doing wrong :) Please go ahead and move the comments to the proper page. Would appreciate if you can let me know what I was doing wrong. AmLucki (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
John, Thank you for your shepherding of the northern Cherokee tribes article. The other involved editor believes that I have a COI, so I have stayed away from it. But I am happy to see an NPOV article being developed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  04:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure - sometimes something catches my interest and I attend to it for a bit. I don't have time to really review the substance of these changes, and I'm afraid that some baby is going out with the bathwater, but on the whole the article is leaner and better.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding this article... I'm starting to get really concerned about the tone of discussion. I think it may be time we escalated the dispute elsewhere and got as many eyes on it as possible. Considering the responses in this conversation, I'm wondering if a WQA report might be in order. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is easy enough, I suppose, to mis-type Moron for Mormon, particularly if you throw the former around a lot, so I'll be interested to see what the response is there. But there is probably enough floating about for a WQA anyhow.  While it's nothing I can't handle (what's the phrase - a soft voice turneth away wrath?) I confess to a certain fatigue in having to slough off repeated insults.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was remarking more on the responses to the editwar warning, talking about editors who "don't know what they're talking about" strikes me as a pretty bad misunderstanding of how things work here. That combined with the continued attitude at the article's talk page is really disquieting. I was pretty sure the Mormon/Moron was just a typo. I dunno though, not having done much if anything through WQA before I'm not sure what to expect. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's routinely insulting at a rather low grade - NCNOLT people are "nutjobs" (that was at AFD), editors who disagree with or challenge him are "ignorant", "amateurs" and so forth. So calling someone a moron didn't seem too far out of prior bounds; though as I said a typo was always within the range of possibility.  In any event I do agree that he seems to misconceive Wikipedia, viewing it as a collection of articles and information on things that "deserve" attention rather than as a compendium of things that have already *received* attention.  Have you ever written a WQA report before?  JohnInDC (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think I have... though I may have during another dispute back in December or January. I'll submit one if you'd rather not. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you? I'm a bit short on time, plus you are a bit more "third-party" as to all this than I am.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Please see WP:WQA. I hope this helps out. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Much better than I'd've done.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

UMaine
Thanks a lot for the input! See you around the Wiki....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Walker steamboat disaster
I wasn't sure whether to include the names of victims and survivors, but they would be helpful to genealogists. The story of the Lucy Walker has so many twists and odd aspects that it is hard to stop. Please forgive any gaffs as I am not facile in using a computer. I can footnote everything in the article, but I don't exactly how to do so. (preceding added at 12:10, 16 June 2009 by User:Oconostota)

Cranbrook
Why does the Andover page have the category "popular culture". Exeter has it as well. Why not Cranbrook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.18.220 (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's discussion on the Talk page - see this link. My own sense of it is that, whatever Exeter or the other schools may have, the Cranbrook collection of "cultural references" is largely a collection of unsourced - even apocryphal - indirect and minor material that would be meaningful only to graduates of the school - and, in this instance hardly to them either.   JohnInDC (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider Eric Nederlander a "notable" alumnus. He is even featured on the website Celebrity prep schools, which makes him a "celebrity". Additionally he was married to a famous woman. And: (Colleteral or not) (NYTIMES states it otherwise) Nederlander does have an important position in one of America´s most famous family businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.211.239 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When he does something exceptional of his own then he's notable. Right now he has a job in his family business, has appears in a junk website and was married to someone who is famous herself for being married to someone famous. It's pop celebrity at best, and precious little of that. JohnInDC (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right that he´s a pop celebrity- but that still means that he is a celebrity and therefore notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.95.17 (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't follow at all. It means that he has enjoyed some limited media exposure based evidently on whom he knows or is related to. The section is not a compendium of everyone who's ever been famous for a few months and I will be removing his entry soon. I'll move this discussion to the talk page so others can comment. JohnInDC (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it isn´t notable to say that world-famous composer Leonard Bernstein had strong ties to Cranbrook and the well-known Yoko Ono once made an exhibition there? This fact gives readers an idea of how well respected Cranbrook is among artists. And concerning Eric Nederlander: Let other people coment about it and listen to their opinions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.230.201 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are more notable but, being dropped into the article with no context or place amount to just random little factoids - they *read* like trivia. And the gratuitous Nederlander reference but is of course entirely beside the point. I think a comprehensive section in "significant exhibitions" would benefit the article greatly but little squibs like those just gum it up. JohnInDC (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I will wait to reintroduce Eric Nederlander until other people have expressed their opinions. Do you think Rob Edwards is notable? He wrote the Academy-Award nominated movie Treasure Planet and even gave an interview with the BBC about it. This was a world-famous movie and I think this is notable. I still think so about Eric Nederlander- but let´s see what others have to say. And what about Trooper Sanders? He is the current Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady Michelle Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.175.104 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with a lot of these entries is that rather than reflecting people of accomplishment or especial fame, they are just people with fun jobs or better-than-average success in their fields. Cranbrook / Kingswood likes to talk about them, because they do have fun jobs, and are more successful than most, but when you come down to it, someone like Trooper Sanders has a government job.  It's in the White House, so he's close to the centers of power, but finally, what has *he* ever done?  In three or four years' time when we learn that he was the author of some new and exciting policy, or gains his own elected office - then sure, he's notable.  But now?  I dunno.  That list is so long already.  Rob Edwards - I don't know.  That's an accomplishment for sure, but it'd be more impressive if it we knew it wasn't just a one-off.  After a while the list gets so long, with so many people that no one has ever really heard of (or who have to be described in great detail so we'll know what they did), that I think the thing loses its utility.  My rule of thumb is, save it for the truly exceptional.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can partly understand your position about Trooper Sanders. I still disagree with you about Nederlander, but never mind, let´s wait what others have to stay. Rob Edwards, however, is notable. This was a very well-known movie. I think it´s not important if we are impressed with the people´s achievements. It´s about informing folks who want to learn something about the people that have attended Cranbrook Kingswood. And getting to know that Nederlander or Edwards have attended school at Cranbrook is (for many people) interesting to know just like the fact that Cranbrook was mentioned in a key scene Academy-Award winning movie. And: Some other people might want to know that Leonard Bernstein used the Cranbrook piano to compose some of his songs or that Yoko Ono made an exhibition at Cranbrook before they visit the place. These facts are -to my mind- imformative and this is what Wikipedia should be- informative. I agree with you that we shouldn´t make the list too long, but I would encourage you to reconsider your opinions about Edwards, Bernstein, Eminem and Yoko Ono.--92.227.175.104 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost but not quite. Wikipedia is meant to inform but not exhaustively. These are encyclopedia articles, not comprehensive compendiums of known facts, or marketing materials. The content of articles is meant to be, intended to be, must be, consciously limited. It's not enough that you or I know a fact or that someone else might find it interesting too. It must be encyclopedic, worthy of inclusion in a complete but not overwhelming article. I'm typing this on a phone or I would link to some Wikipedia pages discussing this. I'll do that later, as well as move this discussion to the article page where it may do more good. BTW, have you ever thought of registering an acct for yourself?  JohnInDC (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don´t know why I haven´t made an account yet. I guess I´m not using Wikipedia often enough. I have just started working on this article about two months and I have really comncetrated on this article. Would you be okay with putting Nederlander and Edwards on the list and leaving Sanders and Eminem´s Papa Doc off the list. These two names wouldn´t make the list too long and I think they would be equally important as Sam Valentin. Otherwise one could make a new category "Popular culture". This category could contain the information about Eminem referencing Cranbrook in the movie 8 Mile as well as the references to Cranbrook in the Preppy Handbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.184.105 (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied this discussion over to Talk:Cranbrook_Schools and responded there. JohnInDC (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

3 or 4 names more don´t make the article too long!! i still think Nederlander belongs back on the list and I will put him back on it if no one else than you expresses his concerns. i put Moriarty back on the list. He attended his midlle school years at Cranbrook. If that does not count anything, where do you draw the line? 10th grade? 11th grade? That is ridiculous!! One should also say that f.ex. Elizabeth Berkley was a memebr of the class of 1990, because that´s interesting. It is cleary expressesd that she did not graduate. In the whiole history of the article no one elsen than you has expressed any concerns with more alums on the list. If I don´t hear anything from someone against f.ex. putting Nederlander on the list, I will put him back on the list. You cannot really explain why Edwards should not be on the list, so I will put him back on the list. It´s just a waste of time to constantly argue about this article. Other Wikipedia articles need much more work, but I will continue making the alumni list virtually complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.254.218 (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing is almost editting war. Just because you think he does not belong on the list, it does not mean you are right. No one other than yourself has ever said that he thinks Nederlander does not belong on the list. Same for Edwards, it´s not about how impressed you are by a person. And for Moriarty, he definitely belongs on the list. He spent 8 years at Cranbrook, is that not enough? Additionally, one should still say "Class of..." although they did not graduate to show of which class they had been a member of! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.58.4 (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of putting the novelist L. Warren Douglas and Charles Bigelow on the list, to my mind both distinguished Cranbrook alums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.58.4 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

concerning Nederlander: The NYTimes (really NOT a junk website) even had an article about him "A night out with". He has in important position in a company that has a Wikipedia article. How many other Cranbrook alums have. It is not too many. please see: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/style/a-night-out-with-eric-nederlander-all-his-world-s-a-stage.html
 * Please continue this at Talk:Cranbrook_Schools. You're continuing to add people of local, marginal, or narrow fame, whose accomplishments may be significant but which are not all that exceptional for graduates of these schools.  You should at *least* confine your additions to people who've achieved sufficient notability to warrant their own Wikipedia articles.  Again, please continue this discussion at the appropriate Talk page.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kathryn Iacocca is notable. No one other than yourself has ever said Kathryn Iacocca is not notable. So, please find someone else who can EXPLAIN why Iacocca is not notable! Othewise I will reintroduce it!--92.227.217.10 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are also the only one to suggest that she *is*. She is the daughter of a wealthy man, running a foundation founded and presumably funded in the first instance by the same wealthy man.  Her marriage was mentioned in the NYT.  That's it - and it's not enough.  Indeed neither she nor the foundation of which she serves as president merits its own article here.  Go see WP:Notable for help in this regard and please stop adding non-notable children of wealthy parents to the Cranbrook pages.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think Jonny Imerman of Imermann Angels (class of 1994) is notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.233.97 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please contributre
Hello,

I am the person who is trying to have a paragraph added to a political holiday where in the wiki the politics have been whitewashed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Holiday_(Quebec)

I have started a discussion on the talk section because Mathieugp has removed previous discussion and removes the paragraph. As you can see from my paragraph I have outside sources, valid sources, that concur the problematic nature of this holiday. Mathieugp has basically made untrue statements claiming that my sources are wiki entries, blogs, etc. As you can see this is not so. Also, this holiday is extremely political as it does celebrate French whiteness, French racial purity, in part. And this has alienated the large English population in Montreal, as well as immigrants to this province. The radio personality I cite is a francophone celebrity who has strongly citicized this holiday for these very reasons. As well, I include scientific research on this subject.

I would appreciate your input. thanks.Disfasia (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC) disfasia

List of Cranbrook Schools Alumni
What do you think of making a list? There are so many notable alumni! It could be looking like that:

The following is a list of famous past students of Cranbrook Schools (also known as Cranbrook Kingswood or just Cranbrook).

A

B

...etc. References (preceding added by User:69.14.127.33.)


 * Personally I think these lists are way lots more informative (and impressive, if that's important) when the list is short, and lists a couple dozen people who've made really and truly outstanding contributions. The fact that Cranbrook has graduated a Heisman Trophy Winner, and the guy who nabbed the Pentagon Papers, and Scott McNealy (along with the guy who helped invent ASCII, or Michael Kinsley) is really something to be proud of.  That tells you, every 10-12 years someone *really exceptional* comes out of the place.  Those people - who are, at least among some age demographics, literally household names - just get lost in the noise if you've got a list of 80 or 100 people that includes a laundry list of alumni who've gained passing mention in one or another newspaper article or whose jobs are merely a notch or two above entirely anonymous.  Right now I think the list that's on the article page is - well, maybe a bit long, but it's not *too* long; it's manageable, it's not intimidating, and it doesn't have the feel of being larded up with every single name that anyone can think to add (which I am convinced, a separate alumni page would do).  I don't think anyone would click through to look at a longer list, to be honest.  So - I'm sorry to sound like a total wet blanket, but I don't have much enthusiasm for the idea.  Maybe you should float the idea on the Talk page and see if anyone else has something to say?  JohnInDC (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

District of Columbia
John, i do take on board what you say about Columbia, and if there were a seperate District of Columbia page then id endorse that, but as its all in the one page (Washington Distict of Columbis) and it refers to the name origin, then its imperative that its informative, and referring solely to the text in a concise manner. The previous material is uniformative. Bostonian_Mike(talk) 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded at Talk:Washington, D.C. but in brief - the previous material is not uninformative. It is simply less than completely comprehensive (which is as it should be).  The article explains that the term "Columbia" was used at the time to refer to the United States.  That quite sufficiently explains how District of "Columbia" got its name.  How "Columbia" in turn came to be applied to the United States is another question, and one that takes the matter - in my view - one level too far for this article.  We might as well explain how the Washington family came by its name too!  JohnInDC (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from La Maison Rouge
Hello JohnInDC, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to La Maison Rouge has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary ' (+ citation -tags &c) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Cranbrook
Why do you consider the CEO of Taubman Centers not a notable alumnus of Cranbrook. Same goes for Tim Westergren?--69.246.27.220 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please go read the lengthy discussion of this topic at Talk:Cranbrook Schools. Also please have a look at WP:Bio to help you understand Wikipedia notability.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Chan Tai San entry
Without boring you with a long (and pointless) history, let me just say that the person who keeps changing the entry has a LONG HISTORY,mostly negative, including legal issues, and it is probably best in the interests of the entry and wikipedia in general that you not step in and give support where you don't have the details. The existing names are supported by the articles/links already included in the articles references. If you want to contact me more directly feel free to do so at info@nysanda.com

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is what I know: Editor_assistance/Requests. I don't care to, and am not required to, review each of the various footnotes to ascertain whether they support the assertions that these redilinked persons were students of Chan Tai San.  It is up to you to place them properly in the article.  JohnInDC (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be emailing you too, actually. Maybe we can figure out exactly what your issue is in email, since you simply delete my attempts to talk on your page and harass the people I attempt to help me. All I will say here is that you know for an absolute fact that Gus Kaparos was a student of Chan Tai San and its petty and insulting to the memory of your Sifu that you would claim otherwise. Xavierq (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Who are you that you claim to be such an expert on Chan Tai San? And should I point out that you attempted to get Mike Parrella's entry deleted? Why? Perhaps because you are either (1) a student of Gus Kaparos or (2) Gus Kaparos himself and that after Parrella's lawyer "fixed" the other situation on the Kung Fu online forum you just want some "pay back". The other individuals are supported by the FOOTNOTES in the article, that is what they are there for! You scanned a single page without even referencing the source and it is a third hand account by a WING CHUN PERSON WHO NEVER EVEN KNEW CHAN TAI SAN Nysanda (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved this discussion to the article talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I became aware of technical issue related to web site RE links, they are NOW ALIVE, please do NOT delete alive links to sources! Nysanda (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I will scan entire articles which include family trees and references and then you can see that official stories about CTS include names where the "other source" is a friend saying "my buddy says he is a student of CTS". When I do that, I expect I will be able to edit the article without your reverting it

Nysanda (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to recent developments, and I just put this here to get your attention, no harm intended, You are joking, right? (end sarcasm). You have an article that is not about Chan Tai San, written in fact about a Wing Chun person (CTS had no connection to wing chun) in which the person states that his friend simply told him he was a disciple. Do you really think that is the same as articles (NUMEROUS) about CTS in which the disciples are mentioned and he is NOT?? Clearly they are NOT THE SAME! So what is the "higher authority" here? Because I have done TONS of citations here, and all the other person has produced is this rathter lame single page with teh above noted problems! Nysanda (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lama Pai / Tibetan White Crane / Tibtan Kung Fu entry?
Other stuff aside, since you are well versed in Wiki and I am not I was wondering if you might assisst me? I am looking over the entry on Lama Pai / Tibetan Kung Fu etc and it is in woeful shape! I'd like to improve it, but I am sort of mentally blocked? Maybe it is because I am uncomfortable with Wiki and the tags and such? My temptation is to just re-start the whole thing, but I suspect that would be the "wrong way"? Any ideas or suggestions? Nysanda (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that is a mess, isn't it? I think, if I were to tackle it I would start by looking at the material collected on the Help page here, particularly under "creating pages" to get a sense of what an article is supposed to look like.  For example, there appears to be a lot of information in that Lama Pai article but it is of varying importance and weight; and more importantly, it needs a good introduction so that someone who knows *nothing* about the subject can come away with a sense of what it's about.  Right now it's mostly just a recitation of lineages and relationships without explaining what any of these things are - at the most basic level - or what they have in common or how they differ.  You know, something like "Lama Pai refers to three closely related Tibetan martial arts which share the characteristics of whatever" - more than that, but you get the point.  I agree that starting over would not be a good idea if you can avoid it - if it were me, I'd add material to try to bring the thing into line with the Manual of Style, incorporating (where possible) the material that is already there, in a series of edits so that others who've worked on the page can see where you're going with it.  Another possibility, which I've never done myself, would be to copy the entire article to a page of your own, a user subpage, and rework it top-to-bottom as you like it.  Then, when it's in the shape you like, post something on the article's talk page saying that you propose to replace the current page with the one you've been working on (including a handy link), and see what people say.  To be honest, most of what I have time for on Wikipedia is work around the edges of articles - I will rarely change more than one section at a time, and those kinds of changes, being more confined, tend not to get people upset even if they turn out to be pretty substantial.  So what you're suggesting goes a bit beyond my own experience.  I *know* there are people out there who can answer that kind of question - maybe there's something on that Help page to steer you to the right people?  Good luck!  JohnInDC (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you get a chance, take a look at what I did and let me know if you think it is ok? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_(martial_art) Nysanda (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Be happy to - but it may be a little while. Suddenly my non-Wikipedia life is very busy!  JohnInDC (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FAIR
FAIR has a reputation for nitpicking and targeting. They are as reliable a source as WND or Free Republic. You need something else to qualify the allegations and noteworthyness. Soxwon (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet WND gets cited a lot here. But that aside, FAIR was not the only source for the material.  Do you have a similar criticism of the book author, and if so, can you substantiate it?  JohnInDC (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the troll -- it's reliably sourced and neutrally presented. Also, don't edit war.  :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. FWIW I had given up on the pointless undos but still it's an ugly sequence to be part of.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * * sigh* As I said Blax, and keep saying, FAIR, MMFA etc. if you look in the WP:RS/N archives are usually described as good for fact-checking, but tend to nitpick and present things in a one-sided manner. It's not a question of accuracy, but of if it really matters. As for the author, I got it mixed up with another book by a kook and apologize for that. I looked up the AIDS cover-up and dropped the subtitle without realizing it. In THAT context I'm fine with it. Soxwon (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I didn't template both of you I'd have been accused of taking sides. Don't forget, "being right is no excuse".  No worries, neither of you stepped over the 3RR line.  :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Chan Tai San article?
Seriously John what's the story here? You said clearly that if the "student list" is subject to debate, ALL should be removed. Well, that's what I did, REMOVED ALL OF IT. And you reverted it? And you reverted what was clearly a personal attack with no substantiation, "motives"? Of course, I could also argue the "motives" he asigns are patently ludicrous. BUt is WIKI a place for that sort of childish stuff (and of course the "I will have you banned" nonsense!). I agreed not to edit the page until others weighed in, Xavier continued. THus I reverted his edits. Now, seriously, we need some more completely neutrals to weigh his so called "evidence" and his behavior Nysanda (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded at the Chan Tai San talk page, the gist of it being that I don't seem to be able to bring any more order to this article there was before and I'm tired of trying. I agree re more neutrals.  That would be great.  I am sure there's a "proper" solution to all of this but 1) I'm not sufficiently well-versed to know what it is and 2) can't impose it if one of you continues to disagree.  I think it's time to me to bow out and let someone else try to sort it.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, everything you say is fair and sadly, it would be better to have more neutrals weigh in on this. But it is such as it is.. Sorry if I come off as "personal", maybe I am a bit hot headed. I am sort of done as well, since WIKI leads to tireless and never ending edits and re-edits and reverts. I think I improved the Lama Pai article, so some success at least I suppose. Be well Nysanda (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not having had time to look at it. Perhaps I will soon.  Good luck, and as I said, I really do hope you guys get it sorted.  You both seem to have stuff to add to Wikipedia.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I continued to edit it? I made one edit. Did you look at it? "at the temple at the temple". It was a typo, I removed it. I didn't think that constituted a violation of our agreement to leave the article as is until someone else weighed in. I'm still willing to leave it as is (which is the same state, minus my typo correction, as it was the first time we agreed to this). Xavierq (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've located the article in question here and uploaded it. Its now linked in the references and the citations and content have been updated to match. This is the very article NYSanda claimed as his main source for who is and is not a disciple and it does in fact list Gus Kaparos. This should end all debate on this subject. JohnInDC, thank you for all the trouble you've gone to in order to keep Wikipedia accurate. It is much appreciated. Xavierq (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)