User talk:JohnInDC/Archive 7

RE:The Swoose
I didn't know said user had been indefinitely blocked, so I appreciate you informing me about it. Cheers. Wolcott (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
John, Sorry about my recent page editing, it wont happen again. You see, my friends peer pressured me into it and my Aspergers means I cant differentiate between right and wrong. On the other hand, I am a wizz at trigonometric functions and 14th order transfer functions. Regards, Michael Oxlong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.137.223 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

ALO 2011/12/20
Special:Contributions/Retrofuturiste was recognised, on wp-FR, as a sockpuppet of fr:Spécial:Contributions/Johnny Mallory, who is himself a sockpuppet of Albion/AlexLevyOne, see: fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/décembre 2011. Hégésippe &#124; ±Θ± 19:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI
The IP address editor who keeps adding the '25 Greatest Teams' stuff on the OSU football article, now has a username (Bottijo). I just removed it again. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So I see - thanks! I added a welcome / unsourced template to his Talk page.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did you place that text back in relation to Chevy Chase
The references on that topic seemed skewed in a political sense and encouraged bigotry. As it makes mention itself, nearly any city from a certain point in the US past could create a section with the same reference as to racial segregation, yet when you go from city to city in wikipedia, they do not. I think that because of the proximity to DC and the White House, someone with ill intent placed this information with a deceptive political and racial intent. So then I tried to see what relevant sources were cited and all it said was auto generated. I tried to find what what meant by auto generated when there was no actual source cited, and found nothing. The only perhaps valid citing was an obscure legal reference that had no relation to that region of Chevy Chase specific. So I removed the section.

I would like an explanation John as to why you felt it ought to be placed back, and then offer for you to read it more specific with that in mind and tell me whether it is relevant. And if so, to request that you go to all other US cities and cite the exact same information on their pages as to racial segmentation, and if not, why not. As said, I see no relevance of this material for this region and it is quite poorly supported to start.

As well, I am writing this as a message to you specific. The system stated that this is where I ought to write this information, and if it ought to be relayed by some other means then let me know and I will be glad to correct it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkSRAGVCollettWickwiki (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored it because it was properly referenced and properly written prose, of long standing in the article, and you removed it without explanation. It is not considered good Wikipedia form to remove non-disruptive material without an explanation, and when I encounter unexplained deletions, I routinely restore the material.  Thanks for giving your reasons here.  However, in point of fact the material is properly sourced, to a Washington Post article that specifically describes the restrictive covenants in Chevy Chase.  (The "auto generated" phrase you saw refers only to the internal name, in the source code, for that citation.)  The reference did not hyperlink to the article specifically, but it was trivial to find with Google, and so I've supplied it.  Here it is again in case you want to read it:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/2000/chevychase0215.htm  You may feel that the description in the Wikipedia article unfairly portrays Chevy Chase - I'm not too crazy about it myself - but it's true, it's properly cited to a reliable source, and it's pretty well qualified in the text to make it clear that Chevy Chase was not unique among American suburbs at the time.  As for adding similar material to other articles - if you can find properly sourced material, you can add it yourself.  It's kind of a collateral issue, however - just because something is, or isn't, found in a particular Wikipedia article doesn't mean it needs to be (or not be) in every other.  Have a look at WP:Otherstuffexists for a general explanation of the issue.  I hope this explanation helps you understand why I restored the material you deleted.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a reply
See my talk page for a reply please! Airplanesrock (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops
Apologies for re-adding the two non-notable individuals ~ edited an older revision :s ...anyway, happy editing! -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 12:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured it just was a glitch! No worries -  JohnInDC (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ALO 2012-2-22
Special:Contributions/Levybros is, with no doubt, a sockpuppet of AlexLevyOne. See: on wp-FR, fr:Spécial:Contributions/Levybros and fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/février 2012, and, on wp-IT, it:Special:Contributions/Levybros (created a long time before the French and English accounts but is the same person with the same interests).

French checkuser also discovered another French sockpuppet: fr:Special:Contributions/Pepito Bleu. See English sleeping sockpuppet: Special:Contributions/Pepito Bleu.

Hégésippe &#124; ±Θ± 09:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wolverine
Hey. That Wolverine post that I deleted something off. Sorry about that but someone was posting profanities and i think they posted some text over the code that was in the article. I just deleted it all.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamthebigG (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that you removed some vandalism, which is good; but it's cleaner, I think, to revert what they added rather than going in and trying to repair it by hand. Sometimes too much gets taken out!  I'm glad it was inadvertent, so no worries.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cranbrook
1. I hadn't heard of the group "Chiddy Bang", but they were on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Friday, so their song mentioning Cranbrook seems notable.

2. Ann Romney is Kingswood Class of '67, not '68. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.196.229 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Do you have a source for the Ann Romney information?  JohnInDC (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jewish lesbian golfer stereotypes from Michigan
John, do you want your talk page semi-protected? Drmies (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He's only been by once or twice so I'm okay for now. I reserve the option of changing my mind, however.  Thanks!  JohnInDC (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yo, yo, yo!
I wanted to apologize to you for the vandalism to your talk page. That crossed the line. I was using vandalism and trolling as ways to relieve the stress of school, and as I'm now on spring break these will no longer be needed. In fact, I actually made a legit account a couple weeks ago and intend to use it for constructive purposes. You have every right to be skeptical of my intentions, but you know my style, and you'll be stunned by the lack of vandalism utilizing said style. You can now go back to reverting other people's Michigan-related vandalism and the like. 140.254.227.45 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Time will tell, eh? JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ranking Query
John: I'm not clear on how to add footnotes (which you have chastised me for, but I've yet to explore the functionality), but notice that the Times global ranking is out again, and Michigan has been upgraded, but I hesitate to change the table without a supporting footnote. Here is the reference, so I'm wondering if you would care to update both note and footnote to keep the process clean: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/reputation-rankings.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.126.212 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that it took so long to get to this. I looked at the reference and compared it to what's in the article, and they appear to be two different rankings - one (in the article) just a "ranking" for 2011-2012, and the other, which you supplied, the ranking "by reputation" for 2012.  I think the one that's in the article is still current.  Am I missing something?  JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

UMich ranking in the summary..
Hey When some other universities (Like Univ of Calif, Santa barbara) have such summaries of rankings on their summary, why wouldn't you let UMich have it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.245.100 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and my comments on the article Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please re-add the archiver
I think you're kind but maybe not seeing that at least one editor is repeating themselves. I appreciate your thoughtful responses and feel we actually hear each other. There does seem to be a lot of importing old arguments into each topic. And I'm tired f constantly being accused of malfeasance. I think they'll repeat themselves whether or not old topics are shelved.Insomesia (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I don't think everyone who wants to take a crack at the article has done so yet. My sense is that sometimes people don't want to waste time cleaning up an article that may wind up getting deleted, and so they wait to see what will happen.  If the article survives AfD, I think we'll see more editors arriving to work on it, and they'll benefit from an un-archived Talk page.  Let's at least wait until a bit after that process has run its course, okay?  JohnInDC (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points all around, thank you for the reply!Insomesia (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney Straw poll
It is my opinion that the extended discussions, and retorts to opposes have done little to help the cause of moving forward, and improving the article. I hate to assume bad-faith, but this is possibly due to some types of strawmen, red-herrings, and filibustering. We had 8 supports to 3 opposed, and we were well on the way toward concensus, still might be. Perhaps if we could stay focused, and try not to bog down the poll with redundant discussion that is really attempting to win over few, because as I said, most have already made their minds up. — GabeMc (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. I'll hold my tongue.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not On Our Watch Project
Hello, would you mind removing the additional reference to the Satellite Sentinel Project, which appears under the References section? I, somehow, cannot find it to remove in the edit section. Thank you.Leilapaz (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! JohnInDC (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!Leilapaz (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

D.C. United
Did you check before you committed this edit? An anon had to fix it. That's why it was vandalism: it broke the table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no I did not. Sloppy editing on my part. I apologize. But it was also a hasty conclusion on your part re "vandalism", eh? The anon who fixed the problem was the one you'd accused in the first place. I promise to take better care if you will too!  JohnInDC (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you
John,

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I'm very conscious of not displaying bias in my edits.

Many thanks, Sara MoultonSaramoulton (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

John,

Thanks for checking in and expressing your concerns about my neutrality.

You worry that I concentrate on editing too few entries. In fact, I have edited a range of them, including entries on Bob Holman, Beau Sia, and Larry Smith (the producer).

Again, thanks for your interest.

Best, Bill AdlerIllbadler (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both your notes. As I said, your edits to your own articles really aren't that bad.  It's just hard, I think, to write objectively about oneself, not to mention avoiding including what you personally know rather than what has been reliably sourced.  Even when the articles are neutrally presented, when an (almost wholly) autobiographical article grows to a certain size, one begins to wonder what might have been left out!  There are a lot of possible pitfalls in writing articles about oneself and it just pays to be very, very careful.  Happy editing!  JohnInDC (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

bill adler entry
John,

Thanks for the reply and for your words of caution.

I don't disagree with anything you've said in general, but I do think I've managed to avoid the usual pitfalls, as you've noted. Truthfully, I feel like you've put me between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, you want everything to be reliably sourced. On the other, you worry that the entry might be too long. Given the number of footnotes, you'll surely agree that virtually every assertion in the entry has been reliably sourced. In terms of length, I was guided by my understanding of "notability." If I could source a given fact, it was, by definition, not so insignificant as to merit exclusion from the piece.

Anyway, in light of your view that I've avoided the usual autobiographical pitfalls, I'm hoping you'll consider taking down the banners at the top of my entry and the entry devoted to Sara Moulton, the ones announcing that they appear to be autobiographies.

Let me know, please. (You're welcome to email me directly, too: bill@eyejammie.com.)

Many thanks, Bill AdlerIllbadler (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I confess I'm of two minds on this - on the one hand the articles don't scream self-promotion but on the other it would be hard to say that they've been objectively written. I don't know that they're not; I just know that as a general matter it is hard for people to write objectively about themselves.  What's left out may be as important as what's included, and without the tag at the top people wouldn't know how the articles came to be.  How about we canvass some other editors and see what they think?  WP:EAR is a good place for that sort of thing -  JohnInDC (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

another solution?
John,

How about if you took a crack at editing my entry and the one on Sara Moulton? Do the research and make whatever changes you think are merited. I'm thinking your efforts would add the missing element of objectivity and you could then remove the banner at the top of the pieces.

Thoughts?

-- BillIllbadler (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad idea but 1) it's hard for me to find the time for in-depth editing lately and 2) the problem, if there is one, is not so much with what's there, but with what might not be; and I don't know how to go about looking for that! The tag is there to induce another editor to take up the pen, someone with an interest in the field perhaps, and more qualified than me to spot issues.  As I said, I'm of two minds here and I would feel better if someone who wasn't either of us weighed in!  JohnInDC (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

yet another slant
John,

Maybe it'd help if you knew a little more about me. I was a professional publicist for years and years, but I was never a hypester. My whole style was to tell my readers -- strictly professional journalists and editors (back when such creatures were not a dying breed) -- nothing but the facts. The hook was that these were facts with which my readers were unfamiliar. I use the same style when I write about myself, as in the wikipedia entry. I revert to the third person and I stick to the facts -- and I've provided fifty-odd footnotes to substantiate those facts.

Here's the bottom line, in my opinion -- if you hadn't noticed the similarity between my username and my actual name, you likely never would have suspected that I'd written my entry myself. Of course, it's to your credit that you sussed it out.

The problem for me is that -- by your own admission -- you're not very interested in me or in my field of endeavor. Of course, I'd never try to force you (or anyone) to care about something you don't care about. But the practical effect of your indifference requires me to wait around until someone who does care about my field magically appears to do the research that you're not inclined to do. Meanwhile, my entry is forced to bear a scarlet letter for all the world to see day after day after day.

I'd ask you at the least to check up on my footnotes, but that would only confirm that I've done what I've said I've done, without giving you any clue about the possibly nefarious things I've left out of the entry. Would you be open, then, to spending five minutes on a Google search of my career? I hope you'll agree that if I've done anything notably felonious or controversial, it'll show up just that quickly.

Thanks, BillIllbadler (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First - I don't think you've done anything nefarious. I haven't intended at any time to impugn your personal integrity or question your professional ability, and I hope it hasn't come across that way.  I think you've been acting in good faith, and as I said I think you've done a pretty nice job of keeping things toned down.  And yes, I'll be happy to look harder at the article, and Google.  That being said - I don't regard the tag as a Scarlet Letter.  I think of it as a flag to readers that, unlike 90% (or more) of the articles on Wikipedia, the article was written not by a neutral editor or editors but (in your case especially) wholly by the subject himself.  Wikipedia tries very hard to adhere to a neutral point of view.  There is an inherent tension between that aim, and the ability of an autobiographer to gather and present encyclopedic facts in keeping with it.  See Autobiography - it lays all these concerns out nicely.  Anyhow in light of all that I think readers are entitled to know when an article is largely or almost completely autobiographical.  Although it may frustrate you personally to see the tag remain in place until someone else comes along to vet the article, I think that's finally the right thing.  Particularly if you continue to edit it.  Anyhow I will do what I said, and - I appreciate the measured way in which you're approaching this.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

next?
John,

When you write that you'll do what you said, do you mean that you'll reach out for advice to fellow editors who might have an active interest in my field...and my entry? I hope so. Please let me know what transpires.

By the way, I'd love to know how you've been able to substantiate the claim that 90% of wikipedia's entries are written by a neutral editor. Call me a cynic, but I'd guess that the amount of autobiographical editing is much much higher. When it comes to a world historical figure like, say, JFK, you can count on disinterested parties contributing text. For most of the rest of us -- still living folks who have achieved "notability" in some way, but not immortality -- the temptation to write, or at least to improve, an entry on oneself (or on one of one's friends....or enemies) has got to be pretty widespread. I'm just guessing that the majority of these autobiographers are cleverer than I when it comes to their fiddling. Or they're just lucky that their entries haven't yet passed under your gaze.

Finally, I think you might feel differently about whether a banner warning readers about a given entry's autobiographical elements constitutes a scarlet letter if the entry was about you. Whatever wikipedia's guidelines have to say about autobiography, if they don't encourage an editor to distinguish between autobiography that reads like a blowjob and autobiography that reads neutrally, then they're fairly useless. In my opinion, the ability to make that kind of distinction is what defines someone as an editor.

Best, BillIllbadler (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do both - give the article a once-over and ask other editors' opinions. I'll let you know where I post it so you can weigh in.  (Which you should!)  As for the 90% - I just made it up; it sounded right.  And I meant, of all articles, not just biographies; but finally the percentage doesn't matter really.  My point was that Wikipedia is committed to neutrality, and when an article has been largely or entirely written by an interested party, it's enough of an exception to be noted.  (In my opinion.)


 * I guess I agree that I would fret more about it if the article were about me, but I've been around here long enough to know better than to write about myself. There are too many pitfalls.  (Of course that's an easier decision for me to make since I'm not remotely notable.)  So anyhow - I'll post something and make sure you know about it, and we'll see what happens.  Thanks for the dialogue in any case.  I always enjoy a sensible discussion with a sensible person, even when we may disagree.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here - Editor_assistance/Requests. Please weigh in!  JohnInDC (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

John,

I'm getting slaughtered here. The banner on my entry now says it has "multiple issues." This is a huge embarrassment to me and I'm tempted just to pull the whole thing down. I'm getting the idea that it's easy as hell for a wikipedian to post a critical -- and damning -- alert about a given entry, but much more difficult to persuade any of them to "improve" the article. And obviously if I attempt to make these fixes, I'm violating the rule about autobiography. Any suggestions about how -- or whether -- to proceed?

Thanks, BillIllbadler (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's rather messier now. That certainly wasn't what I intended when I threw the issue out for discussion, and I'm sorry that it happened.  (I am not just saying that.)  On the plus side, most of the issues are technical ones - the "bare URLs" for example - and can be fixed by anyone who finds time, including you.  This page - References_for_beginners - has some handy information about how to format references.  The "more citations" perplexed me for a moment, inasmuch as you have so many already, but I suspect that relates to the form of some of the references you supplied, which really weren't references at all but rather slight elaborations.  Footnotes are, in about 95% of the cases, reserved for citations to actual supporting external material rather than as parentheticals, etc. like you would find in an essay.  Also many of the references don't actually support the factual assertion but rather just link out to some thing, like an album on Amazon, and don't really make the fact any more verifiable.  "Wikification" is a muddy term, I never quite know what it means, but in this context I think it means, "make the thing look more like a Wikipedia biography".  There are surely conventions set out somewhere in the Manual of Style - start here, Manual_of_Style/Layout, and see if it leads you anywhere.  Maybe just looking over some other biographies would help there - look here, Good_articles/Music or [Wikipedia:Good_articles/Language_and_literature#Language_and_literature]] to see Biographies kind of up your alley that have been rated "Good".  I can't take much time from my day job (or my "night job" tending to my kids) but I will be happy in spare moments to help as best I can.  Finally I should alert you to the fact that taking the biography down is probably the one option that's not available at all; you've done a good enough job (to my mind anyhow) of establishing yourself as "notable", and once you're in, you really can't get out.  It's not "your" article but rather an article about you and the best (and only) course now is to make it as clean as possible.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

John,

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, I'm not inclined to take it. I'm simply not impressed by Wikipedia's standards, nor by the overall quality of the individual entries (even the "good" ones), nor by this process of group editing. I wanted an entry in Wikipedia simply because I don't want to be on Facebook, but it really feels untenable to me now. I can't count on anyone else to fix the "issues" pinned to my article, and even if they did, I'm sure there'd still be some long drawn-out battle about getting the banners removed. And, as I mentioned, if I personally attempt to make these fixes, I'm only going to be flagged again for violating the rules about autobiography. I'm going to see now if you're right about whether I can pull it down.

Thanks for everything, BillIllbadler (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm sorry to have been the instrument of these frustrations.  There are three ways to get an article deleted - "speedy deletion", which doesn't apply at all here; "proposed deletion" which really doesn't fit either but might work; and nominating an article for deletion.  The last one creates a debate about whether or not the article should be deleted.  If you go that route you will need to give a more compelling reason than "I don't want it any more" because, as I said, once you're in you're sort of stuck.  I see now that you've blanked the entire page - I don't think that's going to work; most likely a bot or another editor will restore it.  If you want I can whittle down your original article to a nubbier thing, something that hits the high points and is properly sourced and the like, and at least then the tags could come off -  JohnInDC (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cease and desist
Stop undoing the color edits. It is getting to be very bothersome for several of our users. You follow one user's activity, and check to see if they make any edits, and then undo their editing. I'm sure you see the tedium of this prior to undoing their edits. Per your rationale, the Internet browers that display rendered or poor versions of the contemporary slashed-color box are becoming fewer and fewer as the most recent browsers have no problem displaying the colors. Thank you. --Fidelity6 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I will not stop. As I have pointed out in each edit summary, as well as on your Talk page (or, more accurately, the Talk page of what I take to be one of your sock puppets), the template is defective.  What you describe as a "contemporary" template does not render correctly in the most modern and most common Macintosh browser.   In addition, however forward-looking you may personally consider the template, it has found application in at most half a dozen articles beyond the ones you've (persistently) been adding it to.  As I have said repeatedly, it is a handsome template indeed; but Wikipedia has done fine to this point without it and can hold out without it until it has been tweaked so that it renders correctly in modern browsers.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Message
09:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)