User talk:JohnInDC

Archives

Archive 1 - through 12/29/08 Archive 2 - through 9/26/09 Archive 3 - through 7/10/10 Archive 4 - through 11/15/10 Archive 5 - through 6/11/11 Archive 6 - through 12/10/11 Archive 7 - through 7/23/12 Archive 8 - through 2/1/13 Archive 9 - through 11/1/13 Archive 10 - through 2/24/14 Archive 11 - through 10/14/14 Archive 12 - through 5/4/15 Archive 13 - through 10/7/15 Archive 14 - through 8/17/16 Archive 15 - through 10/20/17 Archive 16 - through 10/13/18

		The Michigan Barnstar
		You've earned this many times over 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to JohnInDC by 7&6=thirteen (☎) on 14:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_University_of_Michigan_alumni#Propose_simplifying_heading_outline . You have been an active editor of this page recently and I would appreciate your comments on this proposal regarding the heading outline and the one preceding it regarding infoboxes. Sarcasmboy (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVASION states "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)." Inserting much-needed references and updating info are helpful changes. You're the loser, buddy.

You forfeited your Wikipedia privileges through disruptive editing and then block evasion. We decide, not you. JohnInDC (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and UW Dawg crap are in the same boat. Losers, abusers, bullies, vandalizers, disrupters. One day, y'all will reap what you sow. You will be blocked forever for your shenanigans, and I will enjoy every second of it. Go screw yourself. 2600:1015:B119:5D3F:ADF9:840D:FFBB:78E9 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I said at Dawg's Talk page is good enough to repeat here: Instead of casting stones, how about you work on getting yourself unblocked - showing some understanding of how your original edits were disruptive, and committing not to engage in sockpuppetry any longer? Until you do those things, you have no standing to complain - at all - about other editors' work. Oh, PS. No personal attacks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JohnInDC. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnInDC, I've opened a requested move discussion about DC neighborhoods here. Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you edit Ohio State Buckeyes football quite a bit. Can you help with a problem editor, 67.197.90.234, who won't stop changing Ohio State's number of Big Ten Championships from 37 to 38? I've explained in edit summaries and on their talk page that OSU's 2010 Big Ten Championship was vacated and so shouldn't be included in the count. The editor ignores everything and repeatedly changes it back to 38 with no edit summary and no reply on their talk page. In my edit summaries, I've even included the table that shows the 37 conference championships, which includes a note below it that explains 2010 isn't included because it was vacated. That table is also wikilinked in the lead. But I assume the editor is well aware of that but doesn't care. It's also explained in the Ohio State Buckeyes football article. I was hoping you had a way of dealing with this editor because they apparently aren't going to stop changing it, and refuse to communicate about it. Thanks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has just changed it again, as I was posting my above comment to you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll start the series of "stop editing disruptively" warnings on his Talk page, and if he keeps it up, we'll see about having the address blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I also added a ref from the school itself showing the smaller figure. It's always helpful when you're tussling with a disruptive IP to have sources to point to. It's easier to have someone blocked for introducing deliberate errors into an article than for persisting in their own interpretation of an otherwise unsourced fact. JohnInDC (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your ref shows 36 Big Ten titles because it's only through the 2017 season; Ohio State won their 37th just a few days ago. But, there you go... Ohio State's own publication excludes 2010, the year for which the school got sanctioned and was forced to vacate their Big Ten title, which is why no credible source that lists their Big Ten titles includes that year and why the table in the article doesn't include it. And the Wikipedia article even explains mulitple times about 2010 not counting, including this: "Ohio State was required to vacate all wins from the 2010 season, the 2010 Big Ten Conference championship and their win in the 2011 Sugar Bowl", with this source attached. I have no doubt that the editor is a huge Buckeyes fan (look at their edit history) and is therefore being a rebel about this simply because they don't want 2010 excluded. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC) 16:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my mistake John, seems I read the edit backwards! Zortwort (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After I looked at your edit history, that's exactly what I concluded as well! Happy to help. You'll return the favor one day I'm sure - JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello JohnInDC, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 01:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wikipedia was for facts? I'm simply adding the band Rook to the 1980 detroit bands page and providing a link to their youtube page that has content about them. Nothing more, nothing less. Why does someone else get to block my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmmusic (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not just about "facts". It's about facts that are more than trivial, and which can be supported by a reliable source, and which are there to enlighten readers and not promote a business or an editor's idea. There's no indication that Rook was anything but a run-of-the-mill local band in the 80s. YouTube is not usually deemed to be a "reliable source" - and, the entry you keep making seems like there's something behind it besides just improving the encyclopedia, though I could sure be wrong about that and apologize if I am. I left a welcome message template on your Talk page - I recommend reviewing those links so you can see how Wikipedia works! JohnInDC (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any help on any of this, just ask. I'd be happy to help. JohnInDC (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JohnInDC

Please please help me - I am a total loss, and as a scholar and THE only expert on the artist Florine Stettheimer in the world who is THE repository of all the FACTUAL biographical information on her life, the dates and images of every extant and lost work she ever painted, etc. I am very very concerned that because of my inability to format Wikipedia entries correctly and the issues I am having with editor's deleting my text and leaving complete "false facts" that have been propogated about the artist over the years from false sources , the latter will continue to be published into the future.

A number of academics who have worked on Stettheimer and I are making a concerted effort to correct these lies about the artist, but for 40 years the latter have taken hold of the public's imagination, including whomever has written the Wikipedia entry and a number of sources he/she quoted that MUST be corrected with more factual, accurate sources.

My initial factual correction of half the entry (Wikipedia STOPS EDITING AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF EDITING!) was deleted by the first editor, but then when I registered a dispute, directing them to my (ONLY EXTANT) biography of Stettheimer, after 3 months, those changes were made.

Recently I went back to the entry and saw that there were still many completely inaccurate, false statements about the artist, and because I want the entry to be as complete as possible, I spent 3 hours writing corrected FACTUAL information on Stettheimer, correcting completely UNTRUE information that was on her site, and adding a great deal more information on her biography, development, and work, which was then deleted immediately.

I apologize profusely for not knowing the proper Wikipedia format - I hope I have learned to "sign" correctly. However the Wikipedia format- the "language" necessary for writing on Wikipedia - is so complicated and difficult to learn, that it would take me a month or more to do so, and frankly I don't have time to become fully conversant with it enough to correct the Stettheimer information to write a complete and factual entry with new sources and eliminate the inaccurate ones. I don't know how ANYONE who is not a trained editor by Wikipedia can understand how to do all the formatting you require.

I would GREATLY appreciate it if I could write all of the correct, accurate, accurate biography and description of her life and significance, development of her work in the entry, citing all the many relevant sources of COURSE, and have a trained editor at Wikipedia assist with the proper formatting as it requires an expert, not a scholar in content, not Wikipedia format to do so. Is that possible?? 

Also I feel, as THE scholar on Stettheimer who is the ONLY ONE who after 20 years of work on her life and work, the person who dated ALL her works for the first time, who wrote the ONLY biography of her life, actually spoke to/interviewed for my biography in 1995 the only surviving family members, her lawyer, her extant friends, all of whom are now dead, co-organized the first full retrospective on her work since she died in 1946, and knows and can identify every building and figure in ALL of her extent paintings, it is my DUTY to write a comprehensive entry on Stettheimer in Wikipedia for future readers and scholars/students to use. 

The problems are:

• as I was writing and adding a great deal of new and corrected information to the Stettheimer entry, I could NOT CHANGE AND ADD NEW SOURCES/FOOTNOTES TO THE ENTRY!!! or EDIT THE ONES THERE THAT WERE CITED WITH FALSE FACTS!! Your editing function on Wikipedia does not allow that!

• Also after adding a certain amount of information, Wikipedia editing shuts down and doesn't let me add anymore.

• And then, EVERYTHING I HAD WRITTEN FOR THREE HOURS WAS DELETED!

'PLEASE REPLACE ALL THE NEW INFORMATION AND FACTUAL, ACCURATE INFORMATION I ADDED TO THE ENTRY AND ALLOW ME TO ADD THE SOURCE MATERIAL AND I WILL DO SO - I HAVE PUBLISHED A NUMBER OF ARTICLES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS IN BOOKS, ART NEWS MAGAZINE and HYPERALLERGIC ON STETTHEIMER THAT ARE SOURCES FOR EVERYTHING I AM STATING IN THE NEW MATERIAL I AM ADDING TO THE STETTHEIMER ENTRY BUT YOU HAVE TO ALLOW ME TO CHANGE THE FOOTNOTES THAT ARE FALSE INFORMATION AND ADD THE NEW SOURCES!!!Bold text

Thank you!!!

--Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara BloeminkBarbarabloemink (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC) January 5 2018[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note. You've been posting in a lot of places, and I've been trying to respond in those places, so if it's okay with you I won't add another to the list here! Take a look at the Stettheimer Talk page, and Editor Assistance Requests and see if those comments don't help you some. JohnInDC (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're still looking, but constructive things has happened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your valiant and inspirational effort. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's probably me at fault, if there is fault, I'd appreciate if you could tell me what sounds like a personal essay and not encylopedic, so that I can correct it. The term "Carr-washing" is not my invention, although I didn't think it needed a source. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for asking. What was once just a "conflicting assessments" section - which said, generally, "some people liked him and some people didn't" and then gave examples of the conflict, now tries to make an editorial and (IMHO) synthesized point that people used to view him as good but modern thinking is different. The phrase, "these examples could be multiplied" is in its way a giveaway in that regard; that this isn't just "reporting" any longer but an essay. Even the subheadings of "hero" and "villain" bespeak an editorial point of view. It's also "synthesis" in that the precise point (used to be seen as good, now seen as bad) isn't actually in the sources. It's an editorial inference. Now, if there are reliable sources that say what this section says - like, "The assessment of Carr and his legacy have undergone nearly a 180 degree reversal since (whenever)", then we can say that. But we can't take raw data and weave it into a story. Under "removal of Carr's name" - well, it leads with a quote, of a quote, but doesn't make it clear who's quoting what or to what end. That alone is a problem and should be cleaned up, but again, when used to introduce the remainder of the section, it's as though we're weaving together related, but separate, sources to make a larger point rather than simply restate what the sources say. That's the "essay" problem. Is this helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh that DC-1871 page is still pointless and redundant. Would be great to see History of Washington, D.C. restructured a bit so it's more obvious how duplicative it is. I'll see about working on that soon. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't for an instant understood what a "DC 1801-1871" article is supposed to tease out or focus on that isn't already abundantly covered in one or another of the score or more of existing articles on the District. Sometimes it's "they had different governments"; sometimes it's "well, slavery". I don't know how much there is to say on those issues, but if there's enough then, well, write those articles. "Municipal governance in the District, 1801-1871" or "Slavery in the District". If there's something to be said about those things then how could anyone object to them? I have not heard one single coherent explanation of why we need an article covering a subset of DC history that is already fully comprehended by the DC articles. JohnInDC (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rook was not a trivial band in the 80's in Detroit. Their producer was Al Herschmann who was the engineer on Ted Nugents Scream dreams albums. He has worked with countless bands, Bon Jovi, Ted Nugent, Grand Funk Railroad and many more. Rook was influential in the Detroit 1980's music scene: On Detroits WRIF's Homegrown show, on radio play lists, performed many WRIF parties at Detroit venues, etc. Not sure why you are blocking my posts. Thanks, Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmmusic (talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is happening, yet again, but an editor is reverting the name on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Louisiana_at_Lafayette article. As I tried to explain to the editor in question, this has been discussed extensively on the Talk Page, and a consensus was reach. He refuses to read the talk page, build a new consensus and just keeps inserting his edit, based on what he feels the school/state want, and not based on the Wikipedia Common Name process. I don't want to get in to a edit war with him, but how do I get someone to revert to correct version and lock the page, or otherwise stop him and his edits? Thanks for your input.

Never mind. Elkevbo stepped in and handled it. Thanks

Buffalo State College & The State University of New York at Buffalo are completely different institutions. The Buffalo State College Wikipedia page discusses them as being the same school. Here is a page that discusses the differences.

https://www.univstats.com/comparison/suny-buffalo-state-vs-university-at-buffalo/

Thanks for uploading File:Cranbrook Archer2.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]