User talk:Johncmullen1960

Revolutionary Communist League
John, your account of the LCR congress seems to fit badly. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a news journal, so really punctual stuff like this doesn't fit. I can see that you've tried to balance your accounts, but it's clearly more partial to the views of some currents than other. Furthermore, it's not really the case that the LCR is simply a Ligue of currents. It's a league of communists, and clearly has a live separate from its tendencies. can I suggest you rework your additions? I have moved them to the LCR talk page with this note. --DuncanBCS 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you got it right
Hi John, Thanks for your note. As you guessed, the best way to leave me a message is either on my talk page or on the LCR talk page. --DuncanBCS 17:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Harvey Jackins
Hi, I saw your recent edits - unfortunately, the page is now quite chaotic with various broken bits and bad formatting. I think some of the material you deleted is quite interesting and some pieces you did not delete very POVist - I couldn't help wondering if you don't have a particular axe to grind yourself. :-) Given that the page is now a mess I propose to revert it totally to the last good version - then lets discuss changes to it. Some of the things you got rid of are not weasel. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my page and the Harvey Jackins page John. Would you be interested in an offline chat? I would like to discuss some aspects of this page and others about RC with you. My email is markthomaswp@yahoo.co.uk - I would be glad to hear from you. Thanks. MarkThomas 09:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative (Australia)
Hi John, I don't quite understand the comment you left on the Lutte Ouviere Talk page about the Talk page on Socialist Alternative (Australia). Is here anything I can help with? --Duncan 09:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal / Real names
Asssuming you meant to post your notice about real names as a message on the community portal, I think you're meant to put it under "Notices" rather than start an entirely new section. As far as the idea of using real names is concerned, many editors, particularly administrators, have a desire to remain anonymous while on the Internet; considering that administrators frequently recieve death threats, legal threats, threats of violence and various other unpleasantries, this seems entirely rational. A small group of users with Oversight permission frequently have to permanently remove personally identifiable information from the histories of pages where they have been inserted by malicious users. While you may be comfortable revealing your name, others may not, particularly if, when combined with other information available, it allows them to be traced, stalked, harrassed or otherwise have their personal lives interfered with in some way – Gurch 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Johncmullen1960 wrote:
 * ''Well I think it's worth a debate. People often feel uncomfortable about things which longer discussion allows them to feel comfortable with. If the tens of thousands of wikipedians are mostly worried about death threats, I think there is a real problem. I have personally been involved in antifascist activity in France for twenty years, have regularly put my name and adress on leaflets etc, and I'm fine. I am concerned that a culture of automatic pseudonyms, which exists at present, has more negative effects than positive. We live in a world full of distrust, and I think it's good not to add to it;


 * I am probably in a minority on this question, but perhaps I could found a category of "wikipedians who woudl prefer almost everyone ot use their real names." cheers Johncmullen1960 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi John. I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone on this issue. I agree that editors should use their real names (with some exceptions, for instance editors suffering from oppressive regimes like the Burmese). It does cause some problems, as Gurch says and I experienced myself, but I think using real names is important for our credibility. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You both have a good point. Certainly the vast majority of Wikipedians aren't concerned by threats or harassment or anything like that; I didn't want to give that impression, just point out that it is a problem for some people. I imagine that after twenty years of real-world experience publicising your details, you're used to it; obviously that's a good thing, and I respect your dedication. I imagine, though, that the number of people who read French antifascist leaflets is relatively small compared to the number of people using the Internet – all of whom potentially have access to your details once you put them there. I understand your concern about the negative impact of the practise of using pseudonyms, though I don't believe the consequences are necessarily a problem, and there are benefits. Nobody else here uses the name "Gurch", for example, whereas there is almost certainly someone who shares my real name. In a community the size of Wikipedia's, the greater potential for uniqueness that pseudonyms offer is useful. As far as the question of identity is concerned, furthermore, I see no need to make a significant distinction between real name and pseudonym anyway. Essentially, I can consider myself to be "Gurch" every bit as much as consider myself to be my real name; one applies while I am online, the other applies when I am not. If I believe something should be done, I will readily assert that "Gurch" believes it should be done and consider that to refer to me just as my real name would. Certainly I will accept personally any consequences of "Gurch"'s actions. As far as the issue of credibiliity is concerned, then, I think the same principle applies; and level of credibility or reputation attached to my pseudonym is inherently attached to me. It is in fact possible to determine my real name from information available on this website, and so identify me individually (my location and date of birth are readily available) – but I have no intention of making it any easier – Gurch 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not want to use my real name, and probably not for the reasons you imagine. While I do not mind people from the internet figuring out my real name (which can be done), I am more concerned about the opposite direction. Using a real name here place your activies high on a Google search (especially for uncommon names). I can't think of anyone who would be doing a Google search on my name that I would actively want to be handed my contributions. In particular there is family member I am actively avoiding and it is much easier to not answer post letters grasping at straws than to hand over all my interests and activies that are recorded here along with several ways of contacting me. So I do not think anyone should be looked down on or be pressured because they do not attach their real names to large amounts of information about themselves which can be easily found by the least clever person who has access to a computer. -- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  03:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right that no-one should be looked down on for not wanting to use their real name. (Looking down on people is not in any case something I am very good at. But, in a culture where pseudonyms are almost automatic, I would like to puclicly encourage real names. The Campaign for Real Ale had some success in Britain, and I know that disabled activist groups have run a campaign for real ramps. So perhaps a Campaign for Real Names... Incidentally can someon tell me how to set up a category of "Wikipedians who would prefer that people use their real names and not pseudonyms wherever possible" ? Johncmullen1960 17:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Real names
I noticed your comment at User talk:Gurch about using real names and I just wanted to let you know that I agree. While I don't have a problem with people using pseudonyms per se, I personally use my real name and do not see any reason to use pseudonymity to "protect" myself. I've been active in various online communities for almost 10 years and the only negative has been a heap of spam that is not too hard to deal with.

I think it is only a matter of time before the majority of people have their real-world and online identities merged whether they like it or not and being clear about who you are and what your principles are is an asset that spans the gap between real and virtual communication. In the meantime, we get to deal with the consequences of the " Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory " ;) Mike Dillon 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I can help you set up the category if you want. Not sure if I'll actually add myself, since I'm not much of a "joiner". Mike Dillon 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The name you want for the category, Category:Wikipedians who use their real name, not a pseudonym, and would like to encourage everyone to do so, is probably too long and would risk being deleted or renamed. How about making it Category:Wikipedians who use their real name and putting the other text on the category description page? Another possibility is to put the extra text in a Userbox, but that should probably be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas since new userboxes can be a touchy issue.

To add any page to a category, including your user page, you place   in the page as if you were linking to it and save the page (typically at the bottom of the source text). To change how an entry in a category sorts, you use  ; in the example just given, the sort would be under "S". For the proposed category, you'd probably encourage people to sort as "Last name, First name", given that this is for users who use their real name.

If this category is created, it probably belongs under Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy. The category's description text should probably end up reading something like Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing. If you look at the source of the latter category by clicking "edit this page", you'll see that categories are added as subcategories in the exact same way that an article or user page is added to a category. The userbox, if one were to be created, would end up looking like User anti-anon (which actually adds users to the anti-anon category automatically).

You can find more information about categories at Categorization. The "User namespace" section of that page deals with user categories, as does User categorization. Hope that helps. Mike Dillon 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Web2.0 Lingo link...
Hello Mullen. Not sure why you removed the Web 2.0 lingo link: http://www.lingospace.com/web20 Please explain. Thanks. Fromm

HJ
Thanks for your comments John and sorry I've not had time to respond to your email of a few months ago. I think the article is getting better but still has a way to go. In particular, the intro is now too long but I don't have time at the moment to really get into it. The other aspect is confusion over the relationship between Dianetics and RC. I've just completed reading John Atack's excellent book on LRH and there is some useful material there. Lots of points of comparison between the way LRH progressed Scientology post the split with HJ and others. Also lots of room for reflection on how HJ in effect took Dianetics and not only made it work but humanised it. Interesting stuff. MarkThomas 07:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

AFFT
John, why is the tax status "non-partisan" POV. That's what the organization is - it's a 501 (c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots organization. Morphh  (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tom Clare
A tag has been placed on Tom Clare 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 a person or group of people, 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 biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -MBK004 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I belong to Glasgow
Just thought I'd let you know that I've expanded the article on Will Fyffe, which may help to save your page on the song from deletion. I think it needs a bit more content though. Can you find some refs on other people who sang it etc., ? Cheers  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 09:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

George Formby, Sr
Hello Johncmullen1960. Quite some time ago you asked a question on the page Talk:George Formby, Sr.. In case you haven't yet found the answer I thought that I would pass along this info. I have recently watched an episode of the 1972 BBC series The Edwardians (Imdb link) entitled "The Reluctant Juggler" (Imdb link). It was about the 1907 strike that you were asking about. In it Formby was portrayed as being in favor of the strike. However, he has also arranged his schedule so that he will be performing in cities in the north (it is stated that it is only the theatres in London that will be affected by the strike) while the strike is on as he feels that he cannot afford to be out of work. Of course one must take this with a grain of salt as the episode may be playing with the facts in the effort to dramatize them. Also, even if they were correct in '72, new information may have come to light since then that would alter this version of events. I can say, for what it is worth, that I have found the other episodes in the series to have been fairly accurate. I hope that this is some use - cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPA
I like most of your stuff, but I removed some stuff to make it non-partisan and neutral POV. Please try to use internal links in the future. Diolch. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Gentleman Jim
I have to disagree with the recent edit to Jim Reeves. While the tone of the content was less than encyclopedic, some of the information there in was relevent and useful, especially in regards to the search. I feel, rather then simply remove it all together, it would be much more productive if the content were reintroduced, in more appropriate language, and then properly cited. I felt it more respectful to put here first, rather then on the general discussion. --Leodmacleod, (talk) 6 January 2009, 23:56 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Valérie Damidot


The article Valérie Damidot has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Travelbird (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yodelice


The article Yodelice has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article. &#32; The nominator also raised the following concern:
 * No info about this person with refrences of noble info

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Kamkek (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Organized Labour/Participants
Your name was recently removed from the list of participants in WikiProject Organized Labour, with the edit description saying that inactive accounts were delisted. However, it appears that your name was removed simply because it wasn't signed with the normal User: link and date, and they didn't bother to search for it. Thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to re-add yourself to that list. Djr13 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of UK popular song in world war I


The article UK popular song in world war I has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Original research lacking neutrality; not encyclopedic content; see WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cindy ( talk to me ) 08:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Coon song
Your addition of a reference to "British expansionism" here was recently deleted as unsubstantiated, as it does appear to have been. If you can substantiate it with a footnoted source, you can restore the edit. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)