User talk:Johnyettaw

Mr. Yettaw: I've noticed that you have made a small edit to your biography on Wikipedia and just thought I'd give you a heads up that there is a discussion about this Wikipedia article that is going on here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Yettaw (2nd nomination) -- that you may want to give your input on. If you have any questions, please drop me a line on my talkpage.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. Would you prefer if there was no separate article about you, and only one about the Suu Kyi trespasser incidents? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yettaw's preferences have no bearing on this issue. Please join the discussion on the Yettaw bio talk page.--Jarhed (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jarhed, I did join the discussion on the Yettaw bio talk page where you told me that you were seeking to have me banned. You failed to mention if you were addressing me or Apoc2400 or as I figured by your indirect way of speaking to me through other people... I figured you were addressing us both. If you look below you addressed me as "Yettaw is a person?"... and I figured that you simply writing to me through other people. Being that you responded to a message that Apoc2400 addressed to me. What business is it of yours if people write to me?

Question to anyone who cares about issues of message intrusion: I logged into "Johnyettaw"... and there were messages sent to Me... not Jarhed... yet Jarhed interjected comments designated and addressed to me by name, why would Jarhed chime in on messages that do not specifially address him? Jarhed replied to my messages? What is that all about? This page indicated "Johnyettaw"... "my talk." Am I able to post messages here without Jarhed writing to me telling me that he is seeking to have me banned? as he did on the other site? Someone... please advise. Why would Jarhed make comments to others... when the messages are directed to me? Is this Wiki-protocol?

Where do I ask for help? It appears to me that Jarhed is trying to dominate things that seem - possibly??? (politely written) contrary to what I have read in the guidelines. The "guidelines" read that "anyone" has a right to post. I am not being adversarial... I am not trying to change the content of any article... I am not trying to edit my biography... except show that there are inaccuracies on the article... this is within policy... isn't it? Very confusing. I want Jarhed's comments to me reviewed for "policy" accuracy. Who can I talk to about this. There are things not accurate in the "incidents" article... but Jarhed says I cannot make comments? If I don't make comments... how is anyone to know that these inaccuracies exist"... I am not trying to create problems... I just don't understand the inner-workings of Wikipedia. It seems to me that people are allowed to interpret the rules as they see fit... to fit their opinion. Again... I find this all very confusing. I just got off the phone with Yvonne Yettaw and she told me that she "never" told any reporter that I flew to Los Angeles to meet with her... nor did any other of my family members. I posted comments specifically regarding that many things in the press are not verified and are inaccurate. One aspect of Wikipedia that I have read is that the editors/writers strive for "accuracy." Am I in violation of writing things here? Please to not ban me for not understanding the rules. I am doing my best to figure it all out. Wikipedia states the need to be patient. JohnYettaw (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never asked for anybody to be banned from WP, and I certainly have not done so for you. Making such a threat is against WP guidelines and I do not appreciate you saying that I did such a thing. I will tell you that if you continue to edit articles where you have a conflict of interest, you are likely to be banned, but it will not be because of anything I do. I don't know where you got the idea that WP editors should strive for accuracy, because my understanding is different. WP articles should strive for verifiability and NPOV. In any case, I am glad that you found your talk page, because this is a much more appropriate place to ask questions. I don't know exactly where you go for help, but you might start at the "About Wikipedia" link on this page. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No legal threats

You might want to refactor the comment where you suggested that you would sue Wikipedia for libel. This could be argued to be in violation of our No legal threats policy, and lead to a block. I do understand your issues with the article about you -- I wouldn't want to see you blocked over this. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yettaw is a person trying to fix his own biography, not an admin candidate.Jarhed (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Yettaw is a person???"... Again... Jarhed... why are you addressing messages that have been sent "directly" to me? If people send me a message... are you telling me that I am not allowed to respond to their inquiries? What I am doing is attempting to clarify inaccuracies.... is this what you mean by stating that I am trying to "fix" my own biography? Again... Jarhed... why are you addressing messages that have been sent "directly" to me? - as you did on the other page? If I am not allowed to answer questions here... then it is reasonable to say that the people who are sending me messages here are the one's in violation of the rules, first and foremost... and then my mistake in responding is a secondary error. When I get messages... I reply. Are you intentionally trying to manipulate the articles.... is this not a "collective" effort? Are you allowed to smother articles just because you have an interest? You even mentioned that the only interest you have in the "incidents" article centers on "Jim Webb".. why don't to simply stick to Jim Webb aspects? Since you don't care - as you said - about anything else with the incidents? It states on my monitor/screen "Johnyettaw"... "my talk." Now tell me that isn't confusing if you come back and tell me I can enter comments here. Do you have a bias in wanting me silenced by plotting - as you wrote - to have me banned? JohnYettaw (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Yettaw, I got involved in your bio article because it was written in a way that violated WP BLP policies, in other words, I was trying to help you. I would never try to harm anybody that edits around here, certainly not you. I do not come here to fight, so if you want to fight, I will gladly go away. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jarhed, I appologize for misunderstanding your intentions. Plese accept my appology. I disire your help, sincerely. JohnYettaw (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.50.170 (talk)

No apology is necessary. You might be surprised at the number of people who come to Wikipedia to try to fix their own bios. There are many rules here that govern bios, and you can't be expected to know them. It is not exactly forbidden for people to edit their own bios, but perhaps you can take my word for it that doing so can run afoul of many Wikipedia guidelines and is strongly discouraged. I have another concern about your involvement. It seems to me that some editors really enjoy your involvement--actually, they are making fun of you and the incident you were involved in. I don't think that is good for anybody, and while a lot of people might be having fun, I want it to stop. Finally, I posted a few statements on your talk page because it wasn't clear to me that you knew where it was. Now that you have found it, you can use it to communicate with other editors. Generally speaking, you should not use this page to communicate about things that are unrelated to making Wikipedia articles better. If you want to discuss your incident, I recommend that you take such discussions to another venue.Jarhed (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Suu Kyi trespasser incidents. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. If you have issues with the artcile please do not add comments to the article, rather report them at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, especially if you have conflict of interest. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jezhotwells. I have stopped adding comments to the articles... Am I OK writing a response to you here? I am working on short responses. I want to be compliant in every respect. I don't want to be banned for not immediately and adequately understanding the logistics and rules, that I am apparently expected to know. Are there a lot of impatient editorial bullies on Wikipedia? JohnYettaw (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Yettaw, this post is a standard warning to editors that have run afoul of WP guidelines, and it is possible or likely that the editor who posted it is not expecting a response. If you have questions about it, it is completely appropriate for you to post such questions on the talk page of the editor that posted it. I don't know about the number of bullies, but there are many editors who insist that everyone follow WP guidelines, and that is completely appropriate.Jarhed (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to information that is inaccurate and poorly sourced - I don't care who laughs me or the incident. It was the junta through its control over the Burmese news agnecy that falsely declared that "God sent me"... or "God told me" to "save" Aung San Suu Kyi... in a word: Propaganda. And concerning Newsweek's False Light Tramp article... consider reading Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky - [[1]]. Misinformation is misinformation. Printing misinformation for profit is a Tort violation. I know that Wikipedia discourages listing information based on single and weak sources... yet it is allowed to remain in the "incidents" article. I refute several statements in this article known to me to be false. If I can't get the false statements removed... oh well. There are non-Wiki venues to address the false statements that Wikipedia contributors have been allowed to continue... in spite of resonable objections that have been directly objected to by a direct participant and first-hand witness. Jarhed, Thanks for your help - and thanks for acknowledging that I am permitted to post here. Laugh-on. Time is on my side. Propaganda is prone to exposure... and always falls to truth. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have definite concerns about the incident article. As I told you before, if you list your concerns, I will examine the sources and ensure that the article follows them scrupulously, and I will contest any source that is weak. That is about the best that you can expect from this Wikipedia article. My own concern is to make sure that the article does not defame you. I will do my best to ensure that.Jarhed (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jarhed... tell me the exact date I last edited. You are way out of line. You are insinuating that I am still editing the information of the site... You Are Doing Nothing... But Stir Up Trouble - For No Viable Reason. Are you trying to Grand Stand... you are incorrect and still interfering accuracies. You have sited Wiki-Rules that were Incorrect... Why are you still trying to Hassling mE. You are undermining facts... are you trying to PUNISH ME? - Get Some Help and Get Off My Back... You seem to have some serious problems with me. I have not edited anything in weeks - Stop Spreading Inaccuracies. Why are You still trying to convince people of things that are not occurring. Anyone out there... please help me... What can I do to have Jarhed examined for Wiki-Stalking. Get this person away from me on Wikipedia - Jarhed you really-really need to re-examine your personal motives. JohnYettaw (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Yarhew, considering the trouble you caused the last person you tried to "help", I tremble at what you'll do to your enemies. I mean that strictly as a compliment. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Another avenue of information

Also potentially of help to you would be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help, a page written specifically to help the subjects of articles about themselves deal with problems within the articles. Wikipedia is very interested in making sure particularly that articles about living people remain within our core content policies governing verifiabiliy, neutrality and original research. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl, I want to thank you for your soft and non-threatening tone. JohnYettaw (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Yettaw, you should know that this post by Moonriddengirl is a standard one that some editors use to warn people that have made editing mistakes.Jarhed (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jarhed... I am capable of reading the statement and determing the value of what Moonriddengirl posted - your comment is presumptous and condescending. Surely you are not criticizing me for my manners? I am allow to express gratitude and appreciation for a polite message addressed to me... without your interferance... can't I? I have recieved comments about you and there are some who are laughing at you.. for your insistent nagging... and lack of actual contribution to to strenghtening the article. Surely politeness is not a violation of Wiki-policy? Are you bent on correcting me at every step? Someone wrote to me and commented that you appear to be engaging in Wiki-stalking. I read your criticizms of me... but I don't actually see you making postive changes to strengthen the value of the article... are you hanging around to show off your ability to put me down? If so... have at it. JohnYettaw (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Yettaw, please be reasonable. You have shown a lack of knowledge about the rules and guidelines here, sometimes a complete lack of knowledge. Once again, I am only trying to help. If you don't want my help I will be delighted to bow out and leave you to it. As for nagging, once again, asking or insisting that people follow Wikipedia guidelines is always appropriate. I have not touched the incident article yet. The reason I haven't is because there is an edit war going on, and I am trying my best to get people to stop doing it. Your continued posting here is contributing to the problem. The last thing I want to do is put you down, or even interact with you in any way. I want to persuade you to STOP EDITING YOUR ARTICLES. You are contributing to the problem.Jarhed (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should put a point on it and say this: I have no desire to edit your incident article while you are still active on it. Please let me know if you will do as I ask and stay away from that article so that I can stop wasting my time.Jarhed (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jarhed, I could care less if you work on the article. You wrote above to "Do as I ask?" and arrogantly "Stay away from the article." I don't see where you have done anything but attack me at every comment I make. I need help. Can anyone help keep Jarhed away from interfering with my page - Jarhed continues to posts comments at I find to be Antagonistic and Rude. JohnYettaw (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a little more information

Mr. Yettaw, you are welcome to a cordial tone. :) While some communications on Wikipedia may be businesslike to the point of brusqueness (certainly to this Southern woman), staying civil is policy, as is assuming others mean well. Certainly, we should all recognize that you have a reasonable interest in making sure articles related to you are at least fair. It's not always easy working out how best to do that, but it is Wikipedia's goal.

I've looked at your recent notes on your talk page, and since it doesn't seem to have been explained just wanted to let you know that, unlike a chain of private communication, a user talk page is public, which means that anybody can respond to a note left here, even if it is for you. This happens regularly throughout Wikipedia. I'm usually happy when it happens on my talk page, because it usually means somebody else has addressed a problem that would otherwise have been left for me. :) You are certainly allowed to also contribute to conversations on your talk page. Think of it as a party line with slightly different etiquette: anybody can pitch in at any time, and eavesdropping is not regarded as rude.

Not being at all familiar with the articles involving you, I'm not sure if you have lingering concerns about them. If so, a list of specific problems is a good start to getting them cleaned up. I see you ask "On what forum can I be allowed to list the inaccuracies to remedy this situation?" on Talk:Suu Kyi trespasser incidents. User:Justmeherenow gives you good advice there. WP:BLPN is the place to go. Some tips for best success: be as succinct as possible and provide links to sources that support you. Wikipedians are notorious for skipping over long notes. If you give them the links to prove that you're right, they'll be more quickly able to verify and correct any errors. If your problem is that a source is unreliable, explain why. If you haven't already done so, a read through "reliable sources" and "verifiability" would be helpful before you make your case.

I don't believe I am in good position to help with the cleanup of this article, as I am unfamiliar with the situation and my time is heavily committed to cleaning copyright problems on Wikipedia, but I would be more than happy to give you more information about how and where to take your concerns. I should point out up front that you may not be able to get everything in the article that you think is a problem resolved. If information is reliably sourced, Wikipedia is likely to include it, even if you believe that the reliable source has it wrong. As that verifiability policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." As a person involved, though, you may have the unique opportunity to set the record straight through such reliable sources. Get one of them to print it, and we can at least acknowledge that sources disagree. :)

Please let me know if I can provide you any more information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Johnyettaw

User:Johnyettaw, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnyettaw and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Johnyettaw during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Yettaw, during the discussion, I have restored an earlier version of the userpage. It is against policy to attack other contributors, even if you disagree with them or feel that they have been incivil to you. You are welcome to discuss the matter at the deletion debate linked above, but please do not restore the contents as they were, as such comments are clearly against policy. If you are having problems with other editors, there are ways to pursue that within policy; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The result of the MfD discussion was 'keep'. I have kept the latest version of your user page, deleting the previous history (only admins or bureacrats can still see it). Please be warned, however, that should you use your user page to attack other editors, you will be risking being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. You are welcome to leave comments about your thoughts about Wikipedia and the environment in which it operates, however personal attacks are not allowed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)