User talk:John Reaves/Archive6

The last word
So joining the military only makes one feel like a hero ? That is classic. I see that you are quite political. I will leave you with your feelings as I cannot rebut them. Well John, it has been fun and I must admit you are right-it was indeed childish to add a cuss word onto whatever web page I did it to. But I hope you can understand John, maybe somewhere deep down, that I had to do it. Alas, you caught me and chastised me and I have much enjoyed our verbal sparring, but I will heed your command and leave the wikipedia webpages free of my devilish tendencies. I bid you farewell John and keep up the good work. By the way, yes I am in the military and I am not sure that I feel like a hero at all. I just do my job and survive by killing whatever is trying to kill me. Best to you John.

-R.W. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.165.117.106 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Awesome
I personally don't see any harm in the term to describe 'awe-inspiring' creatures. However, it is open to a later editor coming along and changing/disputing it, so it probably would be best to change it (probably just to 'awe-inspiring' - it's a bit clunky, but it gets the same point across without the risk of confusion). Michaelsanders 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I messed up the template. Glad you fixed it. Thanks PeaceNT 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundant
"Peter is an Irish-American Catholic with a Rhode Island / Eastern Massachusetts accent. During the course of the series, he discovers he is part African-American and has been known to have Spanish, Mexican, Scottish, Irish and German ancestors"

It was established that he was Irish-American from the beginning, so of course he has Irish ancestors. Should it really be listed along with the other ancestors that have been revealed throughout the show? An Irish-American "has been known to have Irish ancestors"? Yeah, really? MrBlondNYC 07:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

edit site
I am from Greece my Englese is not good but i want to edit a site here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle#External_links

the link is * P.E.P.A.  Official site of Cycling Association of Veteran Athletes (P.E.P.A.) Thanks you

Canvassing
Thankyou for making a note. I believe that a concensus is stronger when more people agree. I have added requests for comment where I thought it was necessary. If some or all of those are unnecessary, then please specify which ones and I will remove them. My concern is that only vested contributors look at these pages when the impact of the case of an application of a wikiproject to a page is a lot wider.--Shakujo 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Maybe you could suggest a more appropriate place to put this RFC? The RFC topics are fairly limited and the discussion does have an impact on the airlines project. Especially when during said discussion, failings in the airlines project are suggested.--Shakujo 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with full disclosure is that if you look at the discussion there have been a lot of comments from all sides about personal influences and I hoped by involving more people from the wider community that we could have a discussion based purely on the neutral facts of the article, now this RfC is open as a topic of debate itself rather than being independent of my influence and has lost some of its original neutrality. The RfC was made publicly with this intention in mind. BTW use of  is also in line with RfC policy. Your comment in the RfC[] would be appreciated as would anybody's.--Shakujo 06:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I believe the point was that I have suffered veiled personal attacks during discussions and that I wanted to discuss the facts of the article with a wide variety of people. Use of was used by myself, as is considered normal for RfCs. The reason being that I don't want to influence the discussion. If I didn't use  then I am sorry, but the point wasn't that I wanted to remain anonymous, which is almost impossible; the point was to not unfairly influence the discussion before it began. If you look at the discussion and the contributions, logs and ban logs of those involved you will see that despite my argument being fairly well-rounded I am having difficulty getting concensus for similiar reasons to other historical disputes.--Shakujo 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but what the was the point of adding the "full disclosure" comment? You don't seem to object to more people discussing the topic and it is patently simple to find out who placed the Rfc, so why?--Shakujo 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, if I have placed a RfC somewhere inappropriate then please tell me specifically where. This is the first time I have placed an RfC and another editer corrected one entry which was incorrect. I read the RfC policy and tried to follow it as best as I could; notifying the mediator about the RfC as well. Unless you can specify exactly where something is inappropriate, I don't see why we are having this discussion.--Shakujo 07:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it is inappropriate for more people to be involved in the discussion.--Shakujo 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Glassocger
Not that I know of. ;) Happened to spot it, too. I guess that might be an on-sight block, but I did give one "only" warning. Appreciate the concern, thanks. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

why british english?
why use british english in the hogwarts article, when the majority of wikipedia is in american english? just because the books are english? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.250.167 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Deletion
I added that information awhile back on a different email address. I decided to remove it because we should wait till the end of the season before adding highlights. So that's why I removed the material.

I apologize for the comments about Epic Movie, but this was a legitimate edit.

Wilmington, North Carolina spam
Thanks for cleaning that up so quickly. Being a newcomer to spam cleanup, I was a bit daunted and not sure exactly which links were ok, which is why i added the cleanup tag. So thanks! Belovedfreak 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin hopeful?
Hi John Reaves. I see that you're very active and zealous in participating Wiki common places, like WP:RFA and WP:AIV, WP:ANI etc. Do you have intention of requesting for adminship? If you're ready for that, I'll be happy to nominate you. Causesobad → (Talk) 06:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe 2-week preparation is OK. If you have any change in the plan, notify me. Causesobad → (Talk) 07:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So can you tell exactly when should I make the nomination? Causesobad → (Talk) 07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have sent an email to discuss something. Check it! Causesobad → (Talk) 13:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Try your best. :) Causesobad → (Talk) 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV
I'd like to introduce you to WP:RFC/N. That's the place where most username policy violations are discussed and voted on. AIV is usually for the usernames that are blatant ones such as profanity. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 08:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Things change, ya know. But don't let it bother you. It looks like this one will be voted disallow by the end of the night. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 08:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

World Trade Center
Apologies for not explaining my edits well enough in my edit summary. Didn't realize people were watching each of my edits that closely. My goal is to get the World Trade Center article to featured article status. That means extensive copyedits, moving material around (sometimes to different articles), expanding other topics (e.g. summarize the Collapse of the World Trade Center article), and providing more references. I hope that is all okay with you. For now, the detailed casualty figures are at User:AudeVivere/Casulties of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I think these statistics are too detailed for the WTC article, and too detailed for the main 9/11 article. There are some other bits and pieces around Wikipedia that need cleanup and referencing, as well, relating to this topic. Once cleaned up, organized, and referenced, this could be an article on its own. You are more than welcome to help with this or improving the main WTC article, if you like. --Aude (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey thanks, Im quite new to Wikipedia, I thought that the archives needed to be archived Considering that you know more than me, can you let out a message to a wider audience about the improvement that the Ford Falcon article needs and then to contact me? It would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks HB4026 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Northfield Park
There are a number of other harness tracks on wikipedia including: Yonkers Raceway and Maywood Park. Northfield is more notable than both those tracks as it simulcasts to every state in the union (plus canada and mexico) that allows horse betting. Northfield is also one of only two tracks in Cleveland and is the by far the largest racetrack in Ohio (by wagering). Thanks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bem900 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Blocking Me.
Dear Mr. Reaves,

Don't bother blocking me because I won't be using your website again and neither will my friends at school and I have more than you can count. So always remember you need us to keep this website going shame really. Maybe you should have been nicer and myself and my parents would have sponserd a little bit of mony like $20000.00 or something. That's what happens when you mess around with millionairs.

Thankyou and goodbye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanclonaridis (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

You process wonk
Look, I want this IP blocked, OK? "No final warning" is NOT a good reason not to block - there are about 20000 stark raving mad Uni students on this IP, and "oh, the proper procedure hasn't been followed" isn't a good excuse not to block it. Do I need to launch a campaign of persistent vandalism to get it blocked? 192.43.227.18 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

RFD Closures
When closing RFDs, please place the top tag (rt) after the nomination heading unless you are closing a group of nominations with one closure box. If the tag goes before the heading, people editing the previous nomination have a tendency to place their comments after the tag as it will show up at the end of edit box for the previous nomination. If that wasn't clear, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you got it.

====RedirectName → TargetArticle==== RESULT my name date DISCUSSION THREAD
 * -- JLaTondre 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
It seems you've set out with the purpose of standing for adminship. Is that true? PeaceNT 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I'm wondering if you have any interest in co-nomination :) PeaceNT 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's cool then. PeaceNT 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh man
Thank you, I've blocked the guy per... information gained. The things people think of. Now hurry up and get your RfA going so you can stop creating backlogs at AIV :) – riana_dzasta 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for the swift response to my question, but what I am wonering is if there is a place where one can ask if a source is acceptable and have it verified. I've been working on several Simpsons articles, and the sources for many of them are shady and I would like to be certain as to whether or not they are acceptable becore spending an overly large amount of time retreiving them. -- Scorpion 07:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian race
You are right. I get heated and engage over and over again with the same people in revert wars in the Caucasian race and in the white people articles. I am done, or at least I am going to try, I find Wiki a bit addictive. Anyway, if you, as an administrator or just as someone interesting in Wiki, are worried about extreme POV pushing and racialist propaganda, pay attention to those articles and some users. They are constantly engaging in those wars with other editors, not just me, and consensus is impossible with them, because they have a big agenda. In any case, if you want to try, see it for yourself. As said, I will try and retire from Wiki, or at least from these articles. Good luck. Veritas et Severitas 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reaves disinformation
Reaves, You are publishing slander and disinformation. You can bring your sandbox into a court of law. Ralph Schoenman

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Offer of Help
Thanks for the rapid response. Not sure whether to reply here or on my talk page so doing both. As a relative newbie I Need some help on how to proceed when another editor is reverting my edits, and seems not to wish to continue discussion. Please see recent history at Dumper (disambiguation) and discussion thereof for the context. The subject matter is pretty trivial, I am mainly interested in understanding etiquette/protocol. Thanks again and remembering to sign this time Bill F 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for moving the page and sorry for messing things up. Completely my mistake!--Niohe 04:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Do You?
Do you like dull blue signatures? I mean, add alitle color to your sig, won't you? Just a dull, blue sig makes me think that you are boring. Sigs with a little color show that you have at least a little spunk in your life. No offense. Try it sometime. ♥Smartie960♥ (Chatter Box) 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a dull signature I created:

Smartie960 (talk • contribs)

RfA
 Causesobad would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Causesobad to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
 * Please accept my apologies for accusing you of making some mistaken AIV reports. It seems I made a mistake myself and thought I had to remove some reports made by you, but I checked my contributions and found no faulty AIV reports attached to your name. I apologize for the error. I have now switched to strong support.  Nish kid 64  20:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:My Sig
I've fixed that problem with User:Where's Signature Contraction Script. ~ St ep  tr ip  16:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Help help
Thanks, I had forgotten that and your link showed what to do. Now it's gone and I can edit safely again. KP Botany 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Favor...
Hello, ! I think that you're a really great editor, so, do you think that you could sign my autograph book, maybe? It would be an honor if you did! See ya later, ! Cremepuff222 ( talk,  sign book ) 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Torture and resumes
Thanks for asking. I am also the creator and main contributor of the article, so I doubt I would intentionally vandalize it. Actually, I was in the process of trying that Template:Article resume, as the article is quite long, and goes into maybe too much details for the reader with short patience or short on time. The "overview" section was actually already a resume of the article: thus the name "overview", which had the intent of providing the reader a quick overview of the debates, from 1954 to 2007, concerning the use of torture during this war. I'm sure the resume could be improved, maybe you would like to help on that? But I also feel these boxes are not a bad idea. Furthermore, if we do decide to keep that resume box, there is no more need for the "overview" section, and the lead can be adjusted a bit in order not to lose any coherence or important facts which might not be repeated in the rest of the article. It is actually an experiment, but I think it's worth it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 02:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back at Lexington, Kentucky
Looks like a sockpuppet is back. Unsure on how to handle it, so I opened up a case to see if we can garner more comments. Feel free to revert the edit if you feel like it would be appropriate until the case is closed. Cheers,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I was kind of hoping to have a more varied discussion regarding the image in general (e.g. should it be removed entirely or moved? what constitutes an appropriate photo? etc.), but this probably would have been best on the Lexington, Kentucky talk page.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ScoutingWikiProject
Rlevse 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indents at your RFA
I noticed you did a minor edit to further indent your comment to Dgies. If you change  to , however, then the numbering system doesn't get thrown off. Just a thought —Iamunknown 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot?
No. I sort of wish I was.--Cdogsimmons 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It's what keeps me going. --Cdogsimmons 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnesia
Can I at least get my article? I actually did spend some time on that and would really appreciate getting it so that I can what I would like to with it.


 * Here's something I just thought is really important to my case:

"An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."


 * By your own admission, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I agree. However, knowledge isn't what one person or even a group of people define it to be, but what we all know and ideas we share. I share my ideas with others and therefore it has validity as knowledge of a sort. To say that my article is "nonsense" is to dismiss the ideas of several people. See now, this come down to the principles for me. We see words from TV shows like "doh" get into a dictionary yet a culture of our own can not be accepted as logical? What if I were to say that "Arnesia is a fictionary land made up by children from Debate Camp and the rest from here on in is the creation"? Is that acceptable? I don't understand the logic. Livinontop13 07:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I read it. I don't defend myself if I think I should be losing. See, what you seem incapable of understanding, is that things like "The Game" are on wikipedia. Things that are very much inside jokes. Yet that's allowed. I still fail to see what the harm is in allowing something that no one is going to look at except for those who have knowledge of it. If you wonder why I'm fighting so hard for something this trivial, It's because it means something to a group of people. I don't just make up random things that make no sense to anyone except in my screwed up little head and post them on a world site unless there are people around the world (which there are), who understand this concept.


 * Now, on a completely different note, kudos for being in the Harry Potter project. Harry Potter sucks but his books are awesome.


 * In that case... Why don't you tell me? That would probably help a LOT more than arguing endlessly about your fallocies or mine and wwhat the definition is. And the other thing is, are you even keeping an open mind about this? That's what I find interesting. If you spend time being an administrator, I don't think you really think and consider things anymore. I know I do it a lot when I'm answering people constantly. But not just for me but for everyone, seriously try to be empathetic and see where the hell we are all coming from. There are certainly people out there with no validity to anything but, there are probably quite a few that deserve to have their spot.Livinontop13 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I do. I understand how you might. I really do. But you must understand why I would. I don't mean to cause trouble It's just the principle of the matter. There are so many made up places and things that exist to people and are included. If I were to search for, a town from some book no one reads, that would be acceptable. But my place that exsists to several people, isn't. I'm sorry, it's just what I think is right. Livinontop13 07:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Owie123
I didnt mean to because I was reverting to User:Geniac comments but I think when I was reverting you were also reverting and because my server is slow and so it must have skipped a step (This has happened be4) and I was always able to revert back to the original but I forgot to check the talk page and for that Iam Sorry...-- Cometstyles 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S..Your RfA is at 95%(I remember voting for you) and I hope you win..We need some new good Admins..-- Cometstyles 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
I apologize for "destorying" Eyeshield 21. It was an attempt of organization. By the way, why do people hate you so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunami-rage90 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but that was really rude. I just started, and it's difficult to understand this stuff.

Your help...
Thank you... your speedy response is greatly appreciated. I'm afraid that I'm too wiki-illiterate to know how it is best to post my concern. Do I just edit the "user reported" segment of the page you tagged? The user has been warned several times in the past for vandalism, but it would appear the last outburst was in January of this year (I don't know if that is recent enough for consideration or not). Again, thank you for your kindness. TrewthesSeraph 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats a Squid?
It's true, I haven't been blocked but my IPs keep getting blocked with Eithier a squid or a zombie computer warning. Burning phoneix 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, right now it's 212.138.113.13. But it changes and has always happened since I'm living in Saudi Arabia where everything goes through a proxy farm for censorship.Burning phoneix 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Support
You'll almost certainly be granted your adminship but if not, let me know and, when renominated, I'll happily support you then. You do some good work. Coricus 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate home
I did think to suggest it. Yes.Sandpiper 08:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning Users
Hi John, thanks for checking with me before starting to revert. I appreciate that. When I warn a user I follow up for a while by keeping an eye on his edits after that. I feel it my duty, that if I warn a user I should also make sure my warnings are effective. Unfortunately due to the large number of vandal edits I do not always see them the next minute.

Although I agree it would be nicer to warn a user soon after his vandal edit, that doesn't always work. Unless the time difference between edit and warning becomes too large I dont really see a problem with it. After all the vandal edit was made and wikipedia is only served by making sure this behavior is stopped. I am unaware of policy on this point but for myself I keep a time limit of 2 days between vandal edit and warning, and 12 hours between final warning and listing for admin intervention. What are your views on reasonable, yet effective limits?

Kind Regards, Sander123 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign my autograph page
Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•A  foxlove r   PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!!  19:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RfDs
You don't need to make a separate entry for each of those redirects. See how I formatted your previous entry (March 6). John Reaves (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohnI"


 * It was on my mind. :-) All fixed, Regards... JohnI 19:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Simpson
Um, this is a legitimate piece of information that Jessica Simpson is perceived in some circles of her former fan base as having made a bad choice.

Ms. Simpson responded to the criticism, and I put that into the text as well, so as to keep the information neutral.

Not sure why you keep removing it, bad formatting aside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.22.126.61 (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Jessica Simpson
Hm, I wasn't the one who changed her name. Not sure who did that.

When I looked at your revision, however, my information about her controversy with Christian groups was deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.22.126.61 (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Jessica Simpson
Hm-

that name change thing is truly bizarre. i just went through the page history and i agree that it shows up as being my edit, but, and i know i can't prove it to you, i did not do the name change.

could it be that someone else's edit was grouped in with mine if i took a long time to save

or

some other explanation?

regardless, yes, i'm all for keeping her name correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.232.162.49 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC).