User talk:Johnsgreat

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! WLU (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Harry Bloomfield
Then your job would be finding better sources - I know it because he told me - it's not exactly a secret - Elliot Spitzer helped prosecute him - find the court records...this is a collaborative effort, and the job of everyone here is to add and help -

Oh, unless, of course, you ARE Harry Bloomfield...

Here are some active links - I'm not sure how to include them - I would think the official New York Prosecutor's office would be credible enough

http://www.manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2003-06-26a.shtml

and

http://search.manhattanda.org/search/search.cgi?q=harry+bloomfield

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons.

To elaborate: the first source you provided, rgm.com, does not pass as a reliable source, and another link, to NYC District Attorney's website is a "404 not found". That newspaper alone is not enough for such serious claims - also please remember that even the worst things must be described neutrally. Max S em(Han shot first!) 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Antecedent (grammar). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. In particular, avoid phrases such as "in the minds of poorly educated speakers" unless you can cite a reliable source that makes that assertion. TheFeds 16:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

July 2014
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Bog body. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. -- Please read WP:ERA —  Cactus Writer (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indigenous people of the Everglades region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

ERA Style
Hi Johnsgreat. I have once again reverted your edits which changed the dating style on an established article. As previously suggested, you should please read the relevant Wikipedia policy concerning this at WP:ERA. It specifically states: ''Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.'' Editors who persist in editing against Wikipedia policy are generally considered disruptive. If you have any questions, please ask. Thanks. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You have been warned about your persistent era vandalism and I see you are persisting in this. Since you seem disinclined to respect Wikipedia guidelines, I have recommended that your account be blocked. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As you only edit sporadically and this was a little while ago I'm not blocking you at the moment. But if you do this again, I will. I also suggest that you stay away from anything to do with gender as your edits there don't seem to meet our WP:NPOV policy. Doug Weller  talk 17:32, 9 March 2016 (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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2016
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Roy Innis, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. The YouTube link was to a copyright violation, that was not an official site. Doug Weller  talk 17:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Brock Turner
I removed most of your contributed text, left the citations, and for the reasons I gave in the edit summaries. I just want to stress here that, although I have no personal knowledge of the case, even reliable sources are turning up evidence that this case is not quite so starkly one-sided as many sources now tend to present. Going through these sources has given me some sense of the reason for the leniency of the sentence. So I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view. However, Wikipedia articles do need to be accurately sourced (especially under WP:BLP) and editors do need maintain a neutral point of view. As well, they need to try to avoid WP:SYNTH inferences. I happen to believe it's not implausible that the judge was influenced by these two letters. However, it's also not implausible that he instructed court clerks to not show him the letters (at least until after sentencing), the better to arrive at an unbiased and fair sentence. I don't know. I don't know whether you know. And if you know only from personal knowledge (maybe you do!), I'm afraid that's still not enough for Wikipedia. Yakushima (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at binaural beats shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your Josef Mengele edit
Hi there, just to let you know I've reverted the Josef Mengele article back to the last stable version before vandalism crept in over the past few days. My revert has also undone your edit of 2 January. Just to explain...

Meanwhile, Zvi Aharoni, one of the Mossad agents who had been involved in the Eichmann capture, was placed in charge of a team of agents charged with tracking down Mengele and bringing him to trial in Israel.

Your version (above) has awkward repetition of charge/charged so I've put it back to:

Meanwhile, Zvi Aharoni, one of the Mossad agents who had been involved in the Eichmann capture, was placed in charge of a team of agents tasked with tracking down Mengele and bringing him to trial in Israel.

The word "tasked" is normal in the register of detective agencies, so it fits in this context.

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for continuing to make era style changes despite warnings you would be blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You are maligning thousands of theologians, historians, archaeologists and others who use BCE and CE. Your statement about radical rabbis inventing it is historically, surprising in someone who claims two degrees in history (from where?). It's true that it became more popular in the 19th century due to its use by Jewish religious scholars, but I'd really appreciate a source for your "radical rabbis" bit - I assume you have one. It is an extremely bad idea to insult editors - please read WP:AGF, and I have degrees from two of the best universities in the world. I'm hardly uneducated. It's a principle of both Wikipedia academia that all controversial claims of facts should be sourced, but your comment about me and your claim about CE were not and can't be. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Warning concerning disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Graham Hancock, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 06:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)