User talk:John Broughton/Archive 7 April-May 2007

advice on etiquette / moderation question[edit]

Hi John Broughton - We've had a couple of interactions; first on the Nadine Gordimer pages and then you were very helpful to me on with thoughts on dealing with difficult editors w/r/t etiquette. There's an ongoing problem at the Nadine Gordimer page, with an anonymous editor (70.23.*.*) who persists in putting in material in the article; eight other editors have looked at this (as part of an RFC) and all concluded that it was more or less non-notable, the anonymous editor keeps putting it in, self-professedly for race reasons. This probably needs to go to mediation or something, but I'm really unsure of what the process is. Although other people were involved in this early on, they have mostly dropped out. But mediation doesn't seem quite right, because the process has involved other people ...? Thoughts? I'm really frustrated by this person! Who is repeatedly uncivil and difficult to work with. --lquilter 15:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate for anyone reading this page to get the idea that the foregoing complaints have any connection to reality. User:lquilter thoroughly misrepresents me, when she asserts that I restored the material she deleted "self-professedly for race reasons." Actually, a projection is at work. She and the other removers are of the racial belief that no one may report any facts that show blacks in a negative light, and that anyone who does so is a racist. (Apparently, they have no problem with negative depictions of whites.) Conversely, I am of the opinion that the truth cannot be racist.

And so, the ideological clique of editors to which User:lquilter belongs persists in removing material from the Nadine Gordimerarticle. The material in question is a report on a black-on-white attack on Gordimer. Several other editors had had no problem with the material prior to my discovering the "removals." (I did not originally "insert" the material. I only got involved when I saw the c--------p going on; I just hate c--------p.) When I discovered the removals and restored the material, some other editors removed it, initiated personal attacks against me, and commenced an edit war. They also alternated between announcing that nothing I could possibly say would change their minds, and demanding that I defend my restorations. I duly defended the restorations, but the removers always demanded ever better reasons, even though the best reasons for restoring the material were already given in the material itself. More recently, I have added material that further supports the original insertion, but that only stoked the removers' rage.

The editors who had previously inserted/worked with the material in question were either intimidated by the removers' aggression, or had moved on, and were not obsessed with matters of "removal." After all, arguing with the removers can get one c------d, and even blocked. 70.23.199.239 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The news report about the robbery and assault of Nadine Gordimer might fit less controversially with the articles: Race and crime or White flight, which are more about the subject which upset the keepers of the article about an anti-apartheid activist, and are probably patrolled by a very different set of editors. The White flight article, for example, already has a section which mentions white flight from Gordimer's city of residence (Johannesburg); news reports of the attack on Gordimer may have helped further fuel the exodus (if you can find a reputable source claiming as much, that would seem to be worth noting in that section). (High-profile events in which race seems to play a role, such as the beating of Rodney King, can certainly be notable, as can the public reaction to them.) While Wikipedia pays lofty and well-meaning lip-service to the ideal of WP:NPOV, in practice there are sometimes sets of articles which refer to a common topic from different points of view. For example, many articles about various religions are clearly sympathetic to the beliefs of their adherents, and are almost certainly patrolled by religious adherents who are anything but objective. I've read several religious claims presented as fact, without the necessary disclaimers. --Teratornis 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

search help[edit]

John why don't my articles appear on search engines. For instance when discussing bmx if you type in krys dauchy on google it takes to you wikipedia article. But when I did article for joe gruttola and american freestyle association long island respectively, they are only in wikipedia seaches, not on google. Michaellauren 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub page update[edit]

Hi John - I see you copyedited my User:Grutness/WP Stub rewrite (draft)‎ page. What you didn't realise (and I should have put on the page) is that it replaced WP:STUB yesterday, so any copyediting should have gone there - I'm about to update WP:STUB accordingly.

BTW, I've been meaning to tell you for a while that I know a John Broughton. Going by your edits it's definitely a different one, though - the one I know lives in southern New Zealand and is a leadin member of the local Maori community ! Grutness...wha? 22:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more on Nadine Gordimer/user:70.23.*[edit]

Hi John Broughton -- I got your note from a month ago about an anonymous IP editor I'd been dealing with on Nadine Gordimer. A personal crisis came up that took me more-or-less offline for a while, and in the last couple of weeks the situation has gotten more complex. I responded on my talk page and would like advice. --lquilter 04:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-American War[edit]

I'm still new to wikipedia so I won't do it myself, however I'd really appreciate it if you would look into restarting the Afd on Sino-American War. It clearly doesnt belong on wikipedia and is an even more outrageous case of crystal ball than the Iran War page. Thanks. --Westolly 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.jamesvaughn.org[edit]

Note: the original posting and the two responses appeared at Wikipedia:Help desk, I think. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Hi there! You listed yourself as available for copyediting at WP:1FAPQ - is this still the case? If so, would you mind taking a look at Mom and Dad? I think it's quite close at this point. Let me know, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks for your help on this, it's going well so far. Can I pester you for a look at She Shoulda Said No? It's much shorter. Thanks in advance regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your comment on User_talk:Okkar[edit]

Hi

I just dropped by to say I think you're analysis of Okkar's post was excellent. Wikipedia needs editors like you, that are polite to editors but firm at the same time. You also backed up what you said with a pointwise analysis, and till date, there is no reply on his page. Speechless, perhaps :)

I apologize if this seems absolutely random, I'm just a simple editor trying to learn on WP. Many thanks, xC | ☎ 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow now that is a page ... thanks, looks like I've got plenty of pages lined up to read! Cheers! xC | ☎ 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigers at Misandry[edit]

Hi John, sorry to bother you. I've run into a particularly tigerish IP user on misandry, repeated uncivil behaviour, not signing comments and POVPUSH. Particulary their last comment to myself [1] I'd be very much obliged if you could have a quick look--Cailil 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

american freestyle association long island[edit]

john there is a blue stitch boxed around some of the writing please correct, thanksMichaellauren 03:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Cover Up?[edit]

Hey John,

I just ran across a post someone made about user Coz_11's conflict of interest on Bobblehead's talk page [2]. Although I'm not directly concerned about Coz's conflict of interest, I am concerned about how Bobblehead simply dismissed the notification. [3]

Thanks for taking a look into it, Ben 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposal[edit]

Hey John, I appreciate your comment regarding my idea for a FA article protection system. I posted it at the village pump like you suggested. you said that there are multiple problems with the idea, but you only mentioned one. I would like to know what you think the other problems are so I can reformulate my idea. What I am really trying to accomplish is a system that will preserve the article that represent the best that wiki has to offer without violating wiki's most basic tenets. Even if there are fewer than 2000 FA articles that number will continue to grow and I would like wiki to come together as an encyclopedia that can be taken very seriously and this can only happen if the good work we have done is maintained.Cronholm144 05:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Could you review me here and comment on the peer review on the Punahou School article? Thanks! Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

abandened articels[edit]

I edited the pages a while ago but they got messed up and now i dont have enough time so would you be able to take me off, sorry. From Zach111493 ^{my talk}my contributions 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your name from the last of participants, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles. I'm not sure what "they got messed up" refers to, so I'm not able to fix other pages, if that's what you're referring to, unless you're more specific. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

I believe that this was the link you asked for. Sr13 (T|C) 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another vandalism attempt on Bad Boys Blue page[edit]

Hi there, you've been of service on that page before, hence I decided to refer to you again. There's this user "Hmellowp" who makes repeated attempts to screw up the article. This time around he posted some crap on discussion page which I removed. This is the same stuff he tried to do on the main page a few month ago.

(By the way, last time I used your services when I requested you to stop a vandal who was a "formation 1" groupie (see info box on the page)). This time, the vandal is a 'rep' of "formation 2". I would appreciate if you would make a note of the current behavior by the above mentioned user.

Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.63.57.50 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm replying here because you apparently have a changing IP address (or weren't logged in). I don't understand - at all - your reference to "repeated attempts"; Hmellowp has not edited Bad Boys Blue since August 2006, and since then has posted once (yesterday) on the user talk page.

More to the point, your deletion of a perfectly civil posting on the article's talk page is a violation of policy. I have reposted the comments by Hmellowp (that is, reverted your deletion), and have added a request that he/she provide some sources for the claims. If adequate sources exist, the article should be changed; if Hmellowp can't provide any, then the article should stay as in. Please do not delete civil postings on article talk pages, no matter how incorrect you may think they are, nor how biased you think the editor may be; Wikipedia doesn't empower any editor to unilaterally decide the truth. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your "services". Apparently I asked an uninformed editor who easliy falls for "civilly posted" nonsense, and therefore directly contibutes to proliferation of nonsense on wikipedia.

All the best.

P.S. I suggest you take a step further and really follow the suggestion given by Hmellowp and edit the page as he claims. This way you will fulfill your (dis)service properly. 00:58, 5 May 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.57.50 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't change controversial or potentially controversial parts of articles without reliable sources, which Hmellowp hasn't (as far as I can see) provided. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing some of your headings that were strangely formatted. Just dropped by to say that your Editor's Index to Wikipedia is a fantastic resource! I have learnt so much and its all thanks to this one page. Thank you so much! Regards, xC | ☎ 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A copy-editing request[edit]

I noticed your recent copy-edits on the Mom and Dad article, amongst others, and I was hoping you could help me out on another FAC. GoldenEye is currently a candidate, and one of the problems it faces is the need for copy-editing. While I was looking through a few other FACs I noticed that you had experience with good copy-editing, and I hoped you would help get GoldenEye to FA status. Your skills would be a true asset to this FAC, I hope you can help. Thanks! - • The Giant Puffin • 09:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Ted Stevens ethical issues[edit]

Hi John. Your recent edits on the Ted Stevens page has raised a general question from me that I have posted to the Living Biography question board. The conversation is on the Ted Stevens talk page Talk:Ted_Stevens#Ethics_Issues_on_Biography_Pages_of_Politicians. I think your edit was perhaps reasonable thinking about it from a local perspective, but I'm concerned about the larger implications of including these issues on a living biography page. I've seen this done on a lot of politicians pages, so I'm not trying to single you out. But I do think some clarity here would be nice. Please feel free to contribute to the conversation on the talk page.. and thanks for all the tidying you've done over there. Hope you don't take my question as too grumpy :) Slarson 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]