User talk:John5Russell3Finley/Archive SWT

Edward Bishop (of Salem MA in 1692)

A tag has been placed on Edward Bishop (of Salem MA in 1692), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Finngall 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about other editors here, but I have yet to acquire psychic abilities. I can only judge an article based on what's there, not on what's going to be there. Place a {{hangon}} tag on the article for now, and add content as appropriate. In the future, I suggest creating a subpage of your userpage, creating the article there, and moving the finished result over to the actual article page. Finngall 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the speedy delete tag. Seems to me like the title could be tightened up, but that can be handled by a copy and a redirect. Thank you for your time. Finngall 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials. Join us!

Psdubow 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly blocked

Hi John. From reviewing your talk page there may be other users on your network who are causing problems. If this happens again please copy the unblock details here, or if you prefer you can email me this information. My address is listed on my user page. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bishop Edits

Thanks for all the cleanup edits on the Bishops, the Salem project is shaping up quite nicely. Hopefully people will be able to read these articles and be informed of more of the truth of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Bishop (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

SWTTF Newsletter

The Salem Witch Trials Task Force Newsletter Volume I, September 2007
Project News We have just initiated a SWTTF Collaboration. It is an effort to bring a selected article in the scope of this Task Force to at least GA status. Our current collaboration is, our main article, the Salem Witch Trials. You may nominate an article for the next collaboration here. We have also just created a new unit, the SWTTF Anti-Vandalism Unit. This Unit concentrates on stopping, preventing, reverting, and reporting vandalism in articles within the scope of this Task Force. This Unit also focuses on cleaning up articles as well. Although all members of this Task Force are encouraged to revert vandalism, to specifically be a member of this Unit please sign yourself up here. The SWTTF Fall Requested Article Creation Drive is starting, This is a task for all wikipedians, whether or not they are a part of this Task Force, who wish to participate. Prizes range for the friendly cookie, to the SWTTF Barnstar and the grand prize of The Golden Wiki-Award! For Rules and more information go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force#The Fall Requested Article Creation Drive. Member News There has been some discussion about breaking off from the Massachusetts wikiproject. Please join in at the task force talk page If you know anyone who would be interested in joining the project please invite them.(but please don't spam random talk pages :P) We also welcome all are new members. Thanks for joining!!!	Messages from the Editors This is are first newsletter, and because of me its a day late. This first issue was not very well announced (which is probably also my fault :D), but for the next issue we encourage everyone to help write it. Also for the first time I delivered the newsletter personally, but for the future Grafikbot or betacommandbot hopefully will be doing this automatically. So please place your self in the right place here. And last but not least please be bold in your editing. Happy Editing! Yamaka122 ...:) 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 10 – November 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
Articles Needing Attention Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Cleanup needed Edward Bishop • Giles Corey • Sarah Good • Jonathan Corwin • Thomas Danforth • Tituba • Abigail Williams • John Willard • Mary Warren Requested articles Bartholomew Gendey • Nicholas Noyes • Deodat Lawson • Thomas Brattle • Robert Calef • Elizabeth Hubbard • Susannah Sheldon • Sarah Bibber • John Alden • Sarah Bishop • Mary Black • Mary Bradbury • Sarah Cloyce • Mary English • Phillip English • Abigail Faulkner • William Hobbs • Mary Lacy • Sarah Morey • Benjamin Proctor • Sarah Proctor • William Proctor • Abigail Hobbs • Deliverance Hobbs • Margaret Jacobs • Mary Lacey Jr. • Mary Lacey Sr. • Sarah Churchwell • Mary Eastey • Elizabeth Howe • George Jacobs, Sr. • Alice Parker • Mary Parker • Margaret Scott • Samuel Wardwell • Sarah Wildes • Lydia Dustin Expansion needed A Break with Charity • Abigail Williams • Ann Foster • Dorcas Good • John Hale • John Hathorne • John Willard • Jonathan Corwin • Martha Corey • Mary Walcott • Mary Warren • Mercy Lewis • Nathaniel Saltonstall • Rebecca Eames • Roger Toothaker • Samuel Sewall • Samuel Willard • Sarah Good • The Witch House • Wilmot Redd • 1692 • Ann Putnam, Jr. • Betty Parris • Bridget Bishop • Edward Bishop • Elizabeth Proctor • George Burroughs • Giles Corey • John Proctor • Rebecca Nurse • Samuel Parris • The Crucible (film) • Thomas Danforth • Tituba • William Stoughton
Contributors to this Issue Psdubow (Lead Editor) Yamaka122 (Sr. Editor) Cocoaguy (Jr. Editor) Grafikm and Grafikbot (Distributors)
We couldn't do it without you!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. -- At this point we seem to have got some sourness occurring Salem Witch Trials Task Force banner You should note that the Christianity banner includes material permitting assessment for the Witch Trials Task force, and even in the banner itself I think an indication that the task force is related. It is generally quite common to remove banners of projects or groups which have demonstrated little if any recent activity, and the Witch Trials Task Force has shown very little activity of late, which even calls into question whether there actually are any people who are actively addressing that content. One person does not make a project. And, of course, the articles are also relevant to the subject of Christianity, so it makes sense that the content be assessed for that subject as well. If both groups can be accomodated by one banner, then I think the consensus opinion is that the one banner capable of doing that should be used, to reduce the amount of talk page clutter from banners. Particularly considering that group has demonstrated little if any recent activity, consolidation of banners made sense. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC) WP:AIV Hello, I have removed your edits to WP:AIV[1] because your report is not within that scope of the noticeboard. Please consider making your report at WP:AN/I. —DoRD (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Earth Day 2010 It is fitting that on this the 40th Anniversary of our Newest Neopagan Holiday that we here remember those whose deaths to such a great degree resulted in The United States of America not having a State Religion: Bridget Bishop · George Burroughs · Martha Carrier · Martha Corey · Mary Eastey · Sarah Good · Elizabeth Howe · George Jacobs, Sr. · Susannah Martin · Rebecca Nurse · Alice Parker · Mary Parker · John Proctor · Ann Pudeator · Wilmot Redd · Margaret Scott · Samuel Wardwell · Sarah Wildes · John Willard· Giles Corey Perhaps few of them would be happy at having a pentagram attached to their biography. My thought was that the Pentagram was more a sign of a greatful group showing its appreciation for their sacrifice, than any sort of coopting of them as founders as has so often seemed the case in much of the modern media especially on TV. My own personal feeling is that the cross and a designation of this as a feature of Calvinist religion just didn't fit the facts enough to be more than a foot note somewhere, and that perhaps including them in the Christianity group was even insulting to these matryrs-albeit unwilling ones "to religious freedom". John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Discuss the contributions and not the contributors Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User_talk:N2e#Betty_Parris. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You made an implicit accusation of an editor as a Troll. Betty Parris Appearances in fiction Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances in fiction in John Neal's historical novel, Rachel Dyer (1828). Although she remains Samuel Parris' daughter in the narrative, Betty is renamed "Abigail."[3] In the play The Crucible, the character of Betty has very few lines in the play, and most are in the first act. In the book Gallows Hill by Lois Duncan, the main character, Sarah Zoltanne, realizes that she was Betty Parris in a former life after having several dreams and visions, viewed from Betty's perspective. The preceding is part of the text of the Wikipedia Article Betty Parris. My thoughts here are really very few: 1) Her name is Elizabeth, why not use that name ? Bettee is an actual New England First Name from that time period. Her name was Elizabeth, why not use it and avoid the confusion ? 2) My understanding is that if you link a copy of the text on the web that it is a fully adequate means of providing a citation. I.e. it provides adequate reference to the fact that the text exists in real life and it is not neccessary to find a source stating that the thing exists and provide a cite for it. 3) The term original research is kind of a flexible thing, and I find it's invocation in the instant case to be highly suspect. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Response at User talk:Jeepday —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I am copying User:Jeepday's response here to fully document the discussion in one continuous sequence on a single Talk page. Rationale: John5Russell3Finley has continued to discuss contributors rather than contributons, despite being previously warned on that topic. N2e (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Jeepday: "On the surface I am not seeing a problem, I am also not seeing where you have edited the page Betty Parris, but assume it must have been as an IP. The summary by N2e here is correct. The statement "Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances..." is original research if the only source is the book listed. Tags should remain until the indicated correction is made. From your description above, and your comments on User talk:N2e it seems like you asking N2e to remove a correctly placed {{citation needed}} tag because you might find a reference someday. The most appropriate action would be for you to discuss it on Talk:Betty Parris where N2e started the conversation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)" This is a prime example of what happens when you put people in charge who are less familiar with print media than they are with programming. I would suggest that if we are actually writing an encyclopedia here that some folks who know about how to structure a bibliography should replace people who prefer to citicise, and argue. Placement of tags should not supplant the actual work of writing an encyclopedia. I asked for a bit of time and space to edit the article and this was denied me by N2e who simply kept attacking. The status quo is the reason we have lost so many capable editors and contributors. You do not encourage people to write and edit articles when all you do is zip around placing citicism tags, and error messages, and ignoring the people who are actually doing the real work when they ask you to back off. BE ADVISED !: if you were part of this little trouble, and you have placed a watch on this page then do not expect that you are not inclined to continue fighting about this. I have not placed a watch on anyone's discussion page, and am simply stating the facts here for the use of anyone else who may actually be watching. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC) You say above, "...N2e who simply kept attacking." I can assure you that, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I have entirely discussed the contribution and not the contributor and have discussed improvement of the article, not the editor. I have not "attacked" in any way. Please do not make careless allegations of such "attacks" without evidence. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) "Asking for trouble"? I have no idea what you mean by this. People may come to the link WP:SWT trying to find the guideline about the use of the acronym on Wikipedia (usually to point other new editors to), and the hatnote helps them find it. Removing it just makes everyone's lives more difficult. cab (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC) This has nothing to do with "linking the two religions". It's simply an aid for editors who are actually trying to improve the encyclopedia to find what they are looking for. Acronyms are inherently ambiguous, and not everyone who goes to that shortcut WP:SWT is going to be looking for that particular taskforce of one regional WikiProject. And it is not remotely "vandalism" to put a navigational hatnote on a project page. Why don't you go ahead with your ridiculous threat and and report this matter to WP:AIV or WP:ANI --- see how seriously they take you. cab (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Assume good faith Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. See my comment in previous Talk Page section on Betty Parris (above). N2e (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Your "job" here? Hi. You just left a message for me saying you reverted my edits on the Salem Witchcraft Trials page, saying: "I am not opposed to anyone improving the instant article, it is my job here to facilitate that..." This message has me confused. Are you in some way in charge of this page? Do all changes need to be approved by you, rather than be simply made by any other Wiki editor? What do you mean by "it is my job?" Are you a paid Wiki editor? I don't understand. Please clarify. Thank you. TEHodson 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEHodson (talk • contribs) I have been here for a few months, mostly editing for grammar and style, but I have a great deal of interest in the SWT page, as Rebecca Towne Nourse (our family spelling for her last name), Mary Towne Eastey, and Sarah Towne Bridges-Cloyce are my great-aunts x10 or so. I also read a great deal of history, and felt I had something to contribute to clarify the origins of the Puritans, which was rather inaccurately written. Your most recent message to me does not answer the above questions, so I will ask them again. Do all changes to the SWT page have to go through you? What do you mean by the term "my job", which you keep using? Are you a paid Wiki editor? Do you have authority in some way that the rest of us need to understand before we edit this page? If this is the case, then the page should state that so people don't spend hours on something, only to have it instantly reverted because you don't think it's helpful. Does the "Task Force" have to approve changes? Please answer these questions clearly. Thank you.--TEHodson 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEHodson (talk • contribs) Someone else answered the questions above, which you should have answered yourself. Please see my talk page. I don't think it is appropriate for you to assume authority you do not have.--TEHodson 07:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEHodson (talk • contribs) Edward Bishop (Salem) Edward Bishop (Salem) has been tagged for cleanup since 2007. As part of cleanup (which I did not feel reached a point sufficient to remove the cleanup tag) I merged some very short paragraphs, expanded the abbreviation MA, changed a vertical list to a comma-ed list and added a link. We may need to separate some of the paragraphs again if I combined paragraphs on different subjects but my policy remaisn to avoid paragraphs of just one sentence. I will likely look at it again eventually if it remains tagged for cleanup but I don't anticipate making any major changes to that article in the near future. RJFJR (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Quot of your comment copied from my talk page: Re: your comment, how's about if YOU finnish editing the article up to the point where YOU can remove the cleanup tag all by yourself, failing that I will treat your actions as vandalism and take the apropriate action John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC) My response: Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you need to expect others will edit articles you are working on. While you may disagree, discuss or even change what I have edited, I stand by the opinion that my edits can be viewed as an improvement to the article. I fully expect that others, including you, will make edits changing what I have done. Wikipedia has a very specific meaning for the word vandalism and you should restrict your use of the word on wikipedia to that meaning. You should also remember the principle of AGF. RJFJR (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Salem witch trials reassessment Salem witch trials, an article to which you have significantly contributed, is being reassessed. You can see the review here. PrincessofLlyr royal court 21:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Your comments on the review page seem to very seriously violate WP:AGF of the above editor. Please try to conduct yourself in a more acceptable manner. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Salem Witch Trials Task Force Sir, your comments here and elsewhere make it very clear to me that there is a very real chance that you have such a pronounced opinion on this subject that you may well qualify as having a conflict of interests as per WP:COI about it. Once again, you arrogantly assumed the worst about others, in clear violation of WP:AGF. If you had bothered to look further, you would have noticed I had not only checked on the recent history of all listed members, and tagged the talk pages of those who have been recently inactive, which is a permissable standard courtesy, to determine if they were or were not recently active, but I also left messages on the talk pages of those editors who have had recent edits that the Salem Witch Trials article is under GA review. Nor is there anything in any policies or guidelines which states as you do that only listed members are permitted to edit pages. You appear to have almost paranoid ideation regarding this topic, as per your comments in various places, and I have to say that they are a very serious cause for concern regarding your ability to edit related articles in an acceptable manner. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC) October 2010 Attempts to erase this from your user history will be vigorously opposed. You will have to live with the reputation you earned, just like everyone else. --TEHodson 10:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Users are permitted to remove block notices after the block expires. --Geniac (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)