User talk:JohnWittle/Archive 1

Here
"Yes, the joke is getting old. Stephen Colbert's request that everyone say that the population of elephants has tripled... So many people editing wikipedia that the servers crashed. I ask you not do it again. GofG ||| Contribs 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)"

According to = http://tawker.com/2006/08/01/i-blocked-stephen-colbert-on-wikipedia/ ==, the database overload was unrelated to Colbert's prank.Yappa 08:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops
Thanks for the note. I'm registered as Noroton, but I had some computer problems and didn't notice I wasn't signed in when I made some contribs. Thanks.Noroton 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

hi i am chrisbrownwifey06
i am just leaving you a message plase get at me i have 300 edits and this is my first day shinemygrillz is my older brother--Chrisbrownwifey06 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello GofG,

Could you please explain to me what the procedure is, and when and where I am to respond to the charges, if indeed that is protocol? Thank you,  Tewfik Talk 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to why you moved the mediation to the article. You mentioned that it was an issue of civility, and I'm not sure that a large, content-driven debate will solve any etiquette problems on either my or Cerejota's part. Please let me know.  Tewfik Talk 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I should also mention that I don't think either of the topics listed for discussion are actually still being debated. The missles issue was resolved as well as anything on a fast-moving page could be, and the numbers issue continues as the conflict does, and is subject to its own set of problems. I do not believe that these problems are relevant to the problems between Cerejota and myself.  Tewfik Talk 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well yes, all of our debates revolved around the article, but despite editing that was a bit choppy at times, that's not what I have taken issue with, and it doesn't seem to be be what he has taken issue with (especially per his complaint on the mediation page, and my response). Rather, the communication surrounding the article, in his opinion harassment and uncivil, and in mine, well, also harassment and incivility, is what seems to be problematic. I have no problem engaging in a content debate, but I haven't had one with this user for a [relative] while, and thus I'm not sure how productive this direction will ultimately be. While I'm not sure if the issues you have chosen are relevant per se, I do not think they are relevant to us. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-).  Tewfik Talk 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

this is chrisbrownwifey06
you need to mind your own business my brother wrote the 300 edits so dont talk if you dont know now shut your mouth. if you want to sy something say it to my page.--that raw bi%$! 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know
If you and GofG on IRC are the same person...

!quit makes WineSteward leave the channel. There is only one person who can make him return and that is xyr. Please be absolutely sure that's what you want to do before issuing that command as we have to wait for xyr to get online before the bot can be brought back to the channel.

Alternately, you can ask someone like me, or Where, or xyr (who have access to the bot) if the bot is malfunctioning and we can do something about it.

Or perhaps you didn't know what the command did when you typed it. Regardless, it makes the bot leave the channel. To stop the game, ask me or another channel member how to stop the game before randomly typing commands, hoping that the bot will respond to one of them. Thanks. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 05:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik
Hello, is it possible to lodge evidence of the behaviour of Tewfik in the Tewfik/Cerejota mediation? I believe Tewfik is demonstrating the same attitude and wilful pursuit of edit warfare at article Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Despite being given numerous examples of evidence backing up the case for inclusion of detail on aid to Israel and despite having this corroborated as a necessary balance in the article by other interested editors he persists in deleting the detail or reverting its inclusion. He acts if he has explicit domain over the entire article. I believe this attitude may have bearing on the problems Cerejota appears to have also run into via the accusation of Tewfik wikilawyering. An attitude on Tewfik's part which can only be described as "bloody mindedness".

Given my experience of Tewfik I feel there is no other way but to take this matter to arbitration and have lodged a request for assistance here. Tewfik continues to act unilaterally despite other editors asking him to stop and protesting his reversions of detail in the article. Please advise. RandomGalen 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks for your message. I hope you enjoy editting Wikipedia --BostonMA 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures
Good morning. I've just noticed the "refactoring" statement at the top of the mediation page - yesterday I had moved comments out of/back to the "comments on references" section - my goal here was to keep the discussion coherent, but I see now that I shouldn't have made this move. Unfortunately since another editor had extracted his comments (without their reply) to paste them down below again - and carried on the conversation there. Now the "references" and "comments on references" section are drowned in commentary having nothing to do with reference. In short, it's a mess.

Can I ask you to move everything below my last reply to ALoan - "PS: ALoan's examples were made in good faith, I do not suggest we remove those. THEPROMENADER 09:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)" - as the comment following and everything after has nothing to do with reference - up to the comments section please? This would re-unify the discussion from its present split state, and make room for later references and comments thereof. Thanks. THE PROMENADER  08:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Paris skyscrapers mediation
Hi there. You haven't said a word at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris since two days ago. Are you still mediating this? I just left a message there because someone has bypassed mediation. Could you have a look? Thank you. Hardouin 00:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that User:Grcampbell has again bypassed the mediation and unilaterally decided to split the List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris into one list for towers inside the City of Paris and another list for towers outside the City of Paris (which he left both inside the same article). If you don't stop this user there can be no trust in the current mediation. I am reverting his changes and remerging both lists as they existed at the start of the mediation. There's a great deal of chance that Grcampbell will revert me and separate the lists again? Can you check this? Thanks. Hardouin 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wahhhhhhhh! I haven't heard someone cry so much since I left the kids off this morning, I referenced the change on the mediation page!! --Bob 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

GofG, the mediation has again been bypassed today, this time by User:ThePromenader, who argues that La Défense and the 18 skyscrapers articles edited unilaterally by Grcampbell 2 days ago are not the subject of mediation and therefore can be edited at will. The problem is that the points that have been edited in these articles are precisely the language points that mediation is supposed to decide upon (whether "Paris" is used only for the City of Paris or more largely for the Paris urban area). These unilateral edits, which assume that "Paris" is used only for the City of Paris, are bypassing the mediation. I am once again reverting these articles to how they stood at the start of mediation, but there's little doubt that this will be reverted again either by ThePromenader or Grcampbell. Can you intervene? If you're too busy with other things, can you recommend another mediator to take care of this mediation? As things go at the moment, the mediator needs to intervene several times a day. Hardouin 14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon my French, but what the &$%^$& do the articles Hardouin is reverting have to do with our mediation case? None of the pages concerned are under mediation, or have even been indicated anywhere within! Since a year now this fellow will go to any lengths at all to "protect" what would seem, by his behaviour, to be "his" creations - but these last days have been simply astounding.


 * By all means, GofG please do drop by - your objective view is greatly needed. THE PROMENADER  17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

68.156.179.102
There was actually a 1 month block on this address issued on September 20. Check the block log when in doubt in future (get there via User contributions -> Block log). I've converted the remainder of that block to affect anonymous editors only so can you login and continue to edit at school. Next time, please follow the instructions given to you on your block page concerning to request the lifting of an autoblock. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the note
Actually, my user name is User:Noroton. This shows up only when I'm editing so furiously that I go off the Wikipedia site while on other sites and don't realize that I need to sign in again. Thanks for the compliment though!Noroton 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your note came up on a User page I came to -- a user with a bunch of numbers for the name. I thought it was the user page created when I mistakenly start editing when I haven't signed on yet. Now I don't know whether it was or not, because I can't get my way back to the page. You would have sent the message pretty recently. It doesn't matter anyway.Noroton 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy
Well, I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction :). If you need help, drop me a line at my talk page User talk:GofG or Lost's, as I see you've already spoke with him. Vale! GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed you have! I very much appreciate the courtesy and depth of attention that you have given me, and your encouragement. I have been away for some time, as life has accelerated here, so I wanted to let you know that I have both received the love (in the form of polite and specific answers to my questions) and do plan to recycle it responsibly within this community and elsewhere (I will go places :)), though my presence may be more sporadic than my enthusiasm. Thank you again.  WeaselADAPT 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. This is me, from WikiIRC~@! Tragicomedian 05:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did I?
Where did I add spam? Why am I being warned. I did NOT add any kind of spam. Also next time when filling out a user talk page add the time and information. --Josh 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That was quick!
I did have a quick look around the various help/discussion pages and none of them seemed appropriate, and it seems somewhat trivial for soemwhere like WP:ANI, so your opinion would be helpful.

Recently I saw some created pages regarding football chants/songs - We all follow the Arsenal, Who the fuck are Man United?, And It's Arsenal, One nil, to the Arsenal, Hark now hear the Arsenal sing. I didn't feel they asserted notability in the same way other football songs did, such as Who Ate All the Pies?. The editor left a message on my talk page about this, and tried to explain the situation on his talk page. The pages will probably get deleted, and I think he's ok with that.

However...I'm a little concerned with other articles he's created or involved in, such as Pexus field. A Google search for Pexus field returns zero hits. I tried searching for just Pexus and after searching through all the results could find no source to even verify it exists. Another problematic article is King Edward VII School (King's Lynn), in particular these diffs -. I'm wary of going round reverting his edits and/or nominating any more of his pages for deletion, as I don't want him to think I'm persecuting him. I'm trying to assume good faith as his contributions don't seem to be vandalism, but they don't seem to be particularly constructive either.

I'm unsure as to the best course of action to take. Do I revert his edits and nominate his pages for deletion, or hope someone else notices and takes action? One Night In Hackney


 * Thanks, sounds reasonable enough. One Night In Hackney 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page
Sorry about that! I reverted to your version almost immediately thereafter and corrected any errors. --Releeshan 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you a bot?
Your last couple of edits seem a bit off - one corrupted the page, the other reverted one piece of vandalism to another. If you're a human using rollback tools, you should check exactly what you're reverting back to. --McGeddon 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up!
Sorry for the clumsy feet - I've been using wiki for yonks, but have only just started to contribute [totter, stagger, wobble…] Wil Davis 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is Brandon
Hey, if you are reading this, John, my thing is still not working and im on my XPS now... lol think we copied the script wrong into my file or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NodnarbLlad (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for responding
Thank you for responding so fast. My question is how do I report users that are constantly changing the POV of articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.92.202 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks
Cheers :-) thanks for the help philb 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PKK related article
There was a voting finished in summer in turkish-kurdish conflict page but no result was obtained, as I understand. What can I do to change the name of the article, should I try a new survey, is it allowable?Burgaz 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note
I did not protect that page. Also, that user is indef blocked for issuing a death threat. Crum375 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I did protect the Talk page after he continued his attacks there, after being indef blocked for the death threat. I don't see a reason to unprotect the Talk page at this time, under the circumstances. Crum375 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his user page clearly shows his status, and the last edit on his Talk page also does that. Did you have a special reason to add a notice to his Talk page, given that his block occurred over a week ago? Crum375 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Ok maybe you can adopt me. Richardwooding 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation
Thanks for checking the display of Unicode characters on Punctuation. IE6 was not displaying any of the special characters and I needed an independent check of whether my edits had preserved the Unicode encoding or trashed it. Neil Dodgson 13:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect issue
Thanks. Name is Jaranda. You can see the talk page. ++Arx Fortis 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really able to add anything to methamphetamine
Hi my interest in editing that article was that it had very little information on it's abuse in Cape Town the city I live in South Africa, where it's abuse has reached crisis proportions. I added information on it's street name in South Africa, made sure that Tik directed to it, it's status as an illegal substance here, and the laws which cover it. I have no medical qualifications so I cannot add information with t,hat regard. My motivation was only to add a more balanced world view to this article, as Wikipedia is all too often slanted towards America.

As Wikipedia seems so vast, I would love to know where I can help most.

I am a software developer and can perform technical tasks, no problem.

Richardwooding 19:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Western world
What you said is interesting, because most South African's (but especitally English speaking ones) consider South Africa to be part of the Western world. We are definitely part of the Anglosphere (in much the same way as Australia, New Zealand, maybe maybe even Canada is). I did check the Western world article and it did acknowledge this to an extent (mentioning us under culture). Due to our pariah political status for a long period we were isolated, but the (utterly evil) Apartheid political/segragation system we had was very similar to the Jim Crow laws, and simalr policies in Austrralia, both undoubtebly Western countries. With regards to the West/East split under the Cold War we were always definitely on the Western side, fighting a proxy war in Angola (with America's covert assistance under the CIA). Anyway long discussion.... but I think that most South Africans do consider it to be part of the Western World.

I will check out the anti-vandalism tool, sounds like fun.

Richardwooding

Places where english is spoken
Actually according to List of countries where English is an official language, we are the seventh most populous country of English speakers (the UK is sixth). - Richardwooding

Vandalism discovery with recent IP edits
OK, I found theres a lot of vandalism going on in Wikipedia. What do you usually address this, I've been using "non-admin rollback".- Richardwooding 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong revert
Yep was my mistake, reverted to the wrong version, realised my mistake and and fixed it only to find you had already reverted it yourself. Quick work there, lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flood79 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Reply from Noclevername
Thanks for your assistance. I'm not certain where to go, I've been having major difficulties with User:Loremaster; I posted the following--

I must once again report that User:Loremaster has been using insulting and uncivil language on a Talk page (Talk:Human enhancement):

''Since you seem to be only person unable to grasp simple concepts, I don't see why I should be pending backwards to dumb down the article by making it less consise. '' ...

...''Your points are ridiculous which is why I didn't and won't acknowledge them...  ...you don't understand simple concepts. You seem to have not read the sources cited in the article that would help you understand these concepts better. I've improved (rather than dumbed down) the article in response to some of your comments. As for the rest, I am not going to waste my time responding to what I consider ridiculous points. If you think this lacks courtesy, I don't give a damn. I am not here to make you feel good. I'm too busy raising the quality of Wikipedia articles to Good Article status, which I have succeeded in doing several times.''

This is the second such offense, and he is still guarding the Human Enhancement article and the Transhumanism article from edits like a junkyard dog. Please help him adjust his attitude.

...on Wikiquette alerts, but I see on that page that it's about to be deleted. Do I need admin help, or can this be resolved some other way? Noclevername


 * Thanks, GofG. I'm not sure what good it'll do, as he seems incapable of admitting error, but any help is appreciated. Noclevername 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is hardly his first such warning, and so far it's made no impact. He seems convinced his own self-righteousness. As for the owning thing, I think it's because his edits are usually good that he has such a superior attitude toward anyone else's edits. But thank you for trying. Noclevername 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC) P.S., I'm new here and don't know the terminology; what's the IRC channel?

Re: I'll do it
All right, I think we're ready for you to sort it all out.  Tewfik Talk 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Intifada
One editor involved in the mediation which reached no conclusion, has decided to impose the article name Second Intifada. I tried to restart the discussion on the talk page, reminding that mediation was still technically open, after moving the page back. He declined to discuss and moved it again two more times, and so I moved it back as well. Now has come along and moved the page to Second Intifada claiming he has the right to be bold, even if mediation did not garner consensus. Is this correct? How should this dealt with?  T i a m a t  16:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A Man Must Carry On.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A Man Must Carry On.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a FUR to it for you, look it over if you wish.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN   that one guy who buried stuff  22:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of GameRanger
A tag has been placed on GameRanger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of GameRanger
I have nominated GameRanger, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/GameRanger. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Polly (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Law of Attraction
I have added to the talk page per your request. Please read it and respond before further deleting things.

--Akirwan (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Akirwan
Hello. I think my block of Akirwan was justified (beyond the 3RR vio), but I'm ignorant about the subject matter and recognize that my impression of Akirwan as an editor spamming Wikipedia for his book(s) may fall a little short of WP:AGF. The situation is the subject of a brief discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Your input is welcome. Dppowell (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:A Man Must Carry On.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:A Man Must Carry On.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Conservapedia-logo2.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Conservapedia-logo2.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  20:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Douchebag
Hi. Adding Thomas Edison to Douchebag is moderately funny, but still vandalism. It doesn't seem like a good idea to do so. - Bilby (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)