User talk:John G. Miles

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

3RR
I fear that you need to be made aware of WP:3RR. Please be sure to familiarise yourself with it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had read the 3RR policy (while trying to figure out what "rv" meant in the edit comments sections) and think I understand it. To date, I count 2 reversions during my time here and am allowed an additional one within a 24 hour period, correct?  (John G. Miles (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Close. 4 in 24h is an automatic block. But there is no entitlement to 3 William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just trying to stick by Wiki policies, so bear with my questions here:


 * I have currently only made 2 reverts, correct (I'm trying to make sure I'm not missing anything here and thought the "close" comment might mean you disagree)?


 * I understand there are other circumstances (though I'm sure not even close to a full understanding) where the 3 reverts rule does not apply. I assume as admin that you will let me know if you think I've even come close to crossing some criterion line (and what you feel that criterion was and why), well before it devolves into anything petty or worse, so that things can flow civilly and in good faith here.


 * I have noticed that reverts are often made with the "m" or "minor" edit checked. It seems a revert of a non-minor edit would, by definition, also be non-minor (i.e., significant change in meaning, etc.).  Why is this not the case?  And could you point me to the appropriate Wiki policy(ies).


 * My greatest concern is that the BLP, especially, and other Wiki policies be strictly adhered to (as has been imposed on me--but I appreciate the learning experience). I believe living persons, especially, deserve respect (and the benefit of the doubt in disputes) and that the BLP not be a means for opponents to try to undermine someone's credibility simply because they hold strongly opposing views to the LP being bio'ed.


 * My main goal here is to add important content and context and to make sure the article is strictly neutral, with no POVs expressed or insinuated. All I expect is that standards be applied equally to any user/admin in the editing arena, with strict neutrality shown in all user/admin actions, editing or otherwise.  (John G. Miles (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Just as a reminder - you actually broke 3RR on the Singer article today. Please be more carefull. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was actually being extremely careful, as the above request for info (though not supplied by you) and counting the "undo"s on my history list demonstrate. Could you please indicate by time-stamp the reverts you had in mind to help me understand where you're coming from.


 * I won't bother trying to track down the version of the page - but "one of the founding members" is a partial revert back to an old version of the article. The 3 additional reverts/undos are marked as such. If you are going against the 3RR wall, then you have to be absolutely certain. The better way is to try to get consensus on talk before reverting again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you had to "track down" the information before the "be careful" comment was made. A quick copy & paste would have done the job. It's hard to be careful regarding something for which someone refuses to provide specific cites, especially when confusion is noted and more info is requested, as it simply would have helped me resolve the issue in my own head (as I still count only 3 reverts in toto). But I may be slow.


 * Be that as it may, I keep having to take substantial time to do research on Wiki policies every time I read another editor's revert comment or when I get a "be careful" or other message regarding 3RR, so I don't mind asking someone to take a quick few minutes to help me out with the basis for their particular comment. Anyway, the policies are pretty fresh in my mind as far as that goes.  As I understand it, there is a specific exception to the 3RR rule for unsourced material in BLPs and removing unsourced material is one of those exceptions requiring "immediate" deletion (Wiki's emphasis, not mine).  So I assume I can continue to revert unsourced material which includes facts that cannot be substantiated. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a sidenote: The assumption that the NIPCC is an organization by itself, is as far as i can see original research, we have (so far seen) no indication that its more than a "smart" name that SEPP invented to publish the report under. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the original research policy, but again, this is a red herring. I have not claimed the NIPCC is anything in the article.  I simply added additional sourced information about it since it was already there.  So we need to keep the discussion to unsourced material in the article--discussions require no sourcing.  The very group of people who keep reverting the changes and, given the history of the article, should be more knowledgeable on WP:BLP and its exceptions than someone who's just arrived, should, in fact, have already corrected it--especially the admin who actually took the side of keeping the unsourced material in the article--instead of fighting it.  Certainly no one could have missed the prominent BLP box on the Singer discussion page emphasizing the immediacy with which unsubstantiated claims must be removed). --John G. Miles (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the warmings: please don't take them as an assertion that you have or intend to break the rules. They are just warnings. Re 3RR/BLP: the interaction between these two is difficult. People have used BLP as justification for their own preferred reverts; they usually get blocked. The general rule is, that if its sufficiently obviously BLP-immune to 3RR then you won't need to risk 3RR by doing it: other people will: post on the BLP noticeboard if you want more attention William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I didn't take it as an assertion of intent to break the rules. And I was also trying to be very careful to stick to policy, asked those concerned to point out where I had actually broken 3RR (as I was honestly trying to keep very close track), but no one would help me out in this particular regard. As should be clear, I am still not familiar with all the "dispute" avenues available, so thanks for the ref to the BLP noticeboard.


 * I'm also not sure "others" would have reverted an "obviously BLP-immune" issue -- those trying to make Singer's bio NPOV honestly seem few and far between (one needs only examine the history of edits to see the problem). And I'm hoping others would also be proactive in taking an issue to the BLP noticeboard before taking harsh (and possibly unnecessary) measures or taking an adversarial view towards any particular editor--I'm assuming that it's not incumbent on someone trying to remove POV material or add NPOV material to be the one to do so.  But again, perhaps I'm uninformed here and would be glad to be corrected and directed toward the appropriate policy.  I'm here to make an honest and good faith contribution.  I'm also assuming others aren't using "warnings" as a pretext to block those they disagree with.  If the BLP exceptions to the 3RR rule apply, I don't see why the exceptions should not be followed faithfully by everyone when truly unsourced, controversial material is at issue.  Reverts in those situations would be an obvious effort at pushing a POV, it seems to me.  I am also assuming, of course, that the BLP explicit exceptions, as written and accepted by Wiki as policy, are the most important rules of thumb.  I would hope that as long as I play by the rules in good faith, I'll be okay.  But if anyone thinks I should take a particular action, I would hope they would let me or other editors know in good faith as well, rather than as a blunt force weapon to make editors tow a particular preference imposed by any other editor. Not that it's being done, only that I can see it as a temptation.


 * I'd also still be interested for your opinion on this point I made above:


 * I have noticed that reverts are often made with the "m" or "minor" edit checked. It seems a revert of a non-minor edit would, by definition, also be non-minor (i.e., significant change in meaning, etc.).  Why is this not the case?  And could you point me to the appropriate Wiki policy(ies).


 * and also on this point:


 * What seems the best policy in terms of "labels" (e.g., conservative, liberal) as applied to organizations or sources? Do we source them all, or do we allow both labels to be applied as seen fit by individual editors.


 * Perhaps it would be better to start a new article discussion section for everyone to be involved in contributing their feelings on the above points. Feel free to copy them there (or I might, if I get to it first, but gotta visit Mom first).  Hope we can all have a good time and not take any particular efforts by one editor or another making good faith efforts in ensuring a NPOV article personally (this is not directed at you, just a general encouragement). --John G. Miles (talk)


 * "m" - means what it says. But different people use it differently. Labels... unsure. BLP: BLP *correctly applied* allows you to break 3RR. But are you applying it correctly? Maybe not. So don't rely on it to get you out of 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So the "m" is simply a personal preference, I take it. When trying to view histories without minor ("m") edits, which is what I assume it is there for, it does complicate issues and requires I never set my preferences to exclude minor edits.  Again, this is one of those "good faith" issues--full disclosure of major changes without trying to use the "m" to get around it. --John G. Miles (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh... and just on another matter I'm here to make an honest and good faith contribution - no doubt true. But see-also (without prejudice) WP:SPA for info William M. Connolley (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference. I had contributed to other articles before ever noticing Singer's BLP, though my time is extremely limited and I have to make decisions as to where my contributions are directed. My personal life runs under the same "perfectionist" personality trait I tend to apply everywhere else (e.g., work projects, community service, newsgroups, Wiki, etc.)--I prefer to concentrate on one project at a time and bring it to what feels to me like a satisfactory completion, with real progress, before moving on elsewhere, though I may dabble "elsewhere" during the time.


 * Also, requests that "good faith efforts" be made in this article should not be taken as a criticism that any particular individual is not making a good faith effort. It's a term I feel we can all relate to and, if taken to heart, will make NPOV efforts (even if one does hold a particular POV in private life) more cooperative and friendly.  I've already noticed what seems to be personal animus directed towards other editors simply because they've tried to get Singer's article to truly, and "in good faith," reflect Wiki's policies.


 * Oh, and I absolutely do not try to misuse the 3RR rule. It is there for a reason (and I learn more with every policy page I read).  But I hope others do not use the 3RR rule as an intimidation to stop someone from using the 3RR "Exceptions" rule in order to ensure adherence to the BLP guidelines to protect the reputation of living persons from those who fundamentally dislike that person or his/her research results. Petty digs have no place in such biographies, of which I feel some exist on FS's bio. --John G. Miles (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you have met "the regulars"

 * Seen one, seen 'em all ;).

Thanks for the support on Singer's page. I recommend that you commit no more than 1 and in some truly worthy cases 2 reverts on a given subject. Note that you also have to be careful to count anything even remotely conceived as being a revert as a revert. Reverts are generally considered to be whole or partial restoration/deletion of another editors changes. It is usually better to defend your point on the talk page to try and garner some wider support than revert warring. Edit warring is a useless activity in my experience, even if it is tempting sometimes. Be prepared for change to come glacially here, and avail yourself of WP:DR when you are being stonewalled. The solution to stonewalling to to gather more independent opinions via an RfC or mediation. This is where the "glacially" comes into play. --GoRight (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This was very early in a much longer process. If you do a search on the Fred Singer talk page, you'll find additional "enlightening" material on my approach (if it hasn't been archived), so I've become pretty acquainted with "the rules" (scary things that they are).


 * I also take the pillar of Wikipedia to "Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles" to heart as well. And BLPs have specific rules for removal of content and when 3rr should be ignored.  It's meant to be agressive for a reason, so I don't worry too much about it as far as this specific BLP rule goes.  I still try to tread "lightly enough," however, given even admins (as in the case of Connelley above) have agendas.  I've so far managed to avoid "punishment" for trying to be make articles NPOV.  Of course, I don't support individuals, per se, just their efforts to provide neutrality and balance.  I have a real aversion to double standards.  And "glacial" might be an exaggeration. --John G. Miles (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware of this ...
. You name has, unfortunately, had to come up in a somewhat prominent way. This is just FYI, and probably nothing to worry about but you can decide that for yourself. --GoRight (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this (but appreciate the heads up) --John G. Miles (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request
Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally.

Consider this to be my unsolicited request to be given friendly notices. Please make a note of it. --GoRight (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to keep you informed of those areas where I think your input would be useful. I'd also appreciate, on the same terms, if you would consider this a request that you reciprocate the offer and inform me of those areas you think I would have an interest in and could contribute to.  We have, of course, had our differences in the past and I'd expect the same may be true in the future. You may contact me either here on my talk page or by e-mail (as I often do not to regularly check my talk page). --John G. Miles (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you have expressed an interest in receiving friendly notices, if you are not already aware of it you might consider making use of the following template (which is described at WP:CANVASS) on your user page:




 * I will likewise try to keep you informed of topics I believe you have a general interest in. Cheers.  --GoRight (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the pointer, GoRight. Done.  --John G. Miles (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Friendly notice
Noting your interest in Anthony Watts, you may wish to comment re Articles for deletion/Anthony Watts (blogger). Thanks in advance, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

DRV re deletion of article in absence of consensus
I'm largely in agreement with the comments you made at Deletion review/Log/2009 October 28 about the Wikipedia process. I had made an argument along the same lines earlier in this edit, but no one seems to have paid much attention to it, or to the question I raised. There's a substantial faction that has carried the "AfD is not a vote" mantra so far that it amounts to saying that AfD is a mere debating society, with the final decision to be made by one self-selected closer, without any consideration whatsoever being given to the number of Wikipedians who agree with each side.

Incidentally, I take this position although I disagree with much of what you wrote about the substance. The Obama administration has expressed the opinion (an opinion millions of people, including myself, share) that Fox News is not "fair and balanced". Expressing an opinion is not remotely analogous to using the powers of the federal government to harrass people through "tax audits from the Internal Revenue Service, and by manipulating 'grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, etc.'" (quoting our article about Nixon's Enemies List)  Nor is it unprecedented for a political figure to express and even act on disagreement with or hostility toward a particular media outlet; see this compilation for some other instances.

Putting aside political differences, though, I would be very upset at this closure of the AfD even if I thought that the article should be deleted. If I were closing such an AfD, I would say, "I'd favor deletion, but more editors favor Keep than Delete, so there's no consensus to delete, so it stays." That type of reasoning seems to be falling out of favor.

Regardless of the outcome of this particular DRV, would you be interested in working to raise this issue in a broader context, presumably at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy? This has been bothering me for a while but I may now be sufficiently cheesed off to do some work on it. I'd feel better if I knew I wouldn't be tilting at the windmills alone, though. JamesMLane t c 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, the "enemies list" was objectionable in and of itself, but for me it's any organized effort to censor dissent (not just obtuse complaints about it by politicians) in any form that I find objectionable. While it's not completely played itself out, it's definitely gone beyond "complaints" into more than just mild pressure, including lobbying other news organizations to carry water for the administration's animus towards Fox News in this particular instance.  Personally, I'm an independent, so would have the identical complaints with organized efforts to chill free speech by the "highest office of the land" regardless of administration.  But, as you indicate, that is neither here nor there and a matter of individual editorial viewpoint, which is exactly what the consensus seeking process is for and this particular instance was my first introduction to how blatant it con become.


 * I'm all on board for addressing that particular issue, but haven't really had the chance research it outside of the present situation, so I'm not familiar with the prospects for success. I also don't spend a great deal of time on WP, so don't always get messages on my personal talk page (an e-mail duplicating the talk page info would always give me a heads up--it can be done through WP).  I tend to work in spirts when I can find the time (or make time I don't really have) to follow up on WP articles or issues.  This would be one of those.  I'm also not familiar with the precise process, so you would need to take the lead and give me friendly reminders to point me to relevant discussions or even explain the process (I can't always guarantee I'd agree with you, of course, outside the narrow viewpoints of what we've already discussed).  Anyway, with those caveats, you can let me know what you think and, in the meantime, I can try to get a feel for the issue's prospects for success in terms of possible "push-back." Hope all that makes sense.  --John G. Miles (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please redact your mischaracterization of me.
You have crossed another line of incivility. Your claim in the RFC, "YellowFives' specifically stated purpose, per the above discussion, is to denigrate any credibility the award might confer--a POV motivation", is false. I have already told you twice that it is false, and I have never used the word credibility. That is your word, and that is your unsubstantiated opinion of my motivation. In the interest of civility and fair dealing, I ask that you redact this second sentence at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). I expect it would be enough for your purposes to say "The above discussion is essential to understanding the history of the current dispute" but if you want to leave the last two sentences I would have no objection to that. I have already answered your distortions about my intentions, and pointing the readers to the above discussion will let them read both our views and interpret for themselves. There is no reason for you to drag the character assassination into yet another section. ~YellowFives 00:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't about your character, YellowFives, it's about what you specifically stated and that I then pointed out. I'm not interested in your following me to my talk page to continue a discussion which I have been careful to characterize correctly.  As you stated, I am perfectly willing for the editors reading the discussion to decide for themselves whether the characterization of your edit is correct.  You don't have to take it personally, but I'm going to insist we leave it on the Watts talk page.  This is a specific request that you no longer comment on my personal talk page.  Thanks. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011
As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Hi, John G. Miles. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)