User talk:John Reaves/Archive13

Thank you. I will do so. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, requests there are normally not removed after being handled, they are periodically archived by a bot. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Wasn't aware that there is a bot now. John Reaves 20:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Atheism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I beg you to read carefully through the thread before rendering judgment. I think the history of peer-peer interaction in Austrian economics pages indicate that you can't expect accurate representation of information from conflicting editors. For instance, we are accused of massive BLP violations for posting self-published blogs regarding a BLP; yet it is never noted that EVERY post that was reverted from the article consisted of experts (Professors of economics) discussing the economic theories of the BLP. (Clearly exempt via the expert exception on WP:SPS) Please read my remarks on the EW page before rendering judgment. Steeletrap (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." John Reaves 04:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course! But if you'd read the page, you'd see that the "Facts" are all established by Murphy himself, and the outside sources are simply used to respond to the established fact that he endorsed these economic predictions/methodologies. I have stopped editing the page, but it appears that at least some of the blogs are being re-inserted by an uninvolved users. Steeletrap (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I opened the thread with hopes that NDESC would be respected. It spun out of control, but that does not surprise me. Still, even now, we see commentary being added. I suggest you template the thread. Thanks for taking a look at the AN3 even if it did not produce the results I had hoped for. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Already done. John Reaves 04:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, for your own good, I hope you'll consider whether you had any valid policy concern -- either about NDESC, which doesn't apply to the disputed text -- or about 3RR, which wasn't remotely approached here. I know that you get very agitated about these articles and frequently vent about it on your talk page, but I'm concerned that there's a slight tone of denial in your comment above. I do hope that you'll reflect on your experience and actions this evening and come back refreshed in the morning. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, can I ask why you granted Beauvy's unblock request, the one that contained unfounded allegations against me? A couple of admins seemed to think that Beauvy was simply confused when she claimed that I blocked her, but that claim of hers is consistent with accusations she has made in the past. She claimed, for example, that I was responsible for her first block as well. Look at her talk page. She stated, when first blocked, "So you blocked me via a different user name, that is related to a different IP address." I'm not demanding that Beauvy be re-blocked, but I do find it hard to see how unblock requests that contain baseless accusations against other users can be considered in good faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It was about to expire and it seemed overly punitive to leave it in place. John Reaves 20:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That the block was about to expire hardly seems like a reason to remove it. I don't see it as being "overly punitive" to decline unblock requests that contain false accusations against other users and are obviously being made in bad faith. Respectfully, I consider your unblock to be an error of judgment, and I find it strange that you would avoid responding to my reasons for considering Beauvy's request to be in bad fath. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The user accused you of blocking them. Sounds like confusion to me, not a bad faith accusation. John Reaves 20:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it does look like confusion if you look at it in isolation. In fact it forms part of a pattern of accusations by Beauvy against me. As I said, if you can be bothered looking at her talk page, you will see that she accused me of blocking her (using a sock-puppet with admin privileges!) when she was first blocked. Her comments in her latest unblock request were just one more example of this. I'm going to leave this here. I won't bother you with more comments. Time will tell whether Beauvy will be capable of editing in a productive manner. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry to bother, but I left a reply yesterday to your post regarding Therequiembellishere. I'm just letting you know because I'm going away soon, and I'm really eager just to make sure my concerns don't drift into inactivity and archiving before some resolution is reached. After a year of this dispute, as you can imagine I'm very eager to end it. :) Thanks. Redverton (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but my report got delisted due to inactivity with no resolution reached, so I've gone ahead and relisted it. After a year of dispute, one way or another I'd like closure, so please do feel free to check out my reply there to your post. Redverton (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I was just trying to get things going, I don't really have any further comments at the moment. 18:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've got a feeling this relisting is going to drift into inactivity as well - infobox edits are hardly the most glamorous topic. :P If so, I'm probably going to drop this dispute. No doubt I'll make the odd edit here and there regarding his changes, but I never have much time to edit Wikipedia and I'm rather eager to go back doing some more substantive work. As far as I'm concerned, I've done my bit to try and rein in someone who I think to be disruptive, and I'll leave it to others to take over if need be.

I at least have a strengthened sympathy for you admins. Dealing with one disruptive user has gradually worn me down. Hate to imagine what you guys have to go through. Thanks for the good work. Redverton (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about the Bayless edit. I let my hatred for the man get the best of me. It was inappropriate at best.

The edit you changed on Clay Guida's page was wrong. Those are correct nicknames. I happen to be a personal friend of his as well as former wrestling teammate, 1996-2000 Johnsburg High School, 2001 Harper College. You are taking away good information and your threat to block me was completely uncalled for. I will be changing it back with a ref. as soon as I find one.

I really don't appreciate your threat.

Have a good day, John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Hair Diaper (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi John Reaves From yesterday onwards my chat option banned.can you please enable the chat option.i want to ask questions about my article.Do the favor

http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help&uio=MTE9MTg1ff

this is the link .i did chat in this window about my creation of article.after one hour it shows that i was banned till now i am getting the same message.how can i use live chat option help.how much i will be banned. below is my ip address: ip.118.102.131.106. so please do the favor to do live chat to fix my problems in creation of my article.

[10:32] == gateway/web/freenode/ip.118.102.131.106 is now your hidden host (set by syn.)
[10:32] == #wikipedia-en-help Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned
[10:32] == #wikipedia-en-help Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned

Hi John Reaves. Please note that Inner City Press is an accredited media agency at the United Nations headquarters in New York [1], where it has an office in the UN Secretariat building [2]. It also reported that Bryden was removed as Coordinator of the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group ("Schbley previously worked on the UN's Somalia and Eritrea sanctions, from which after complaints he and coordinator Matt Bryden were removed" [3]), and was the first to do so. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

One man simply having press credentials doesn't make a reliable news source. If there were UN documentation of the his forced removal, that'd be a source John Reaves 17:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

I would like to address your comments at this recent ANI. After my last comment, I was off-line until just now, and since the ANI was closed awhile ago and I cannot comment there, that leaves me to comment here instead. It seems that, in your response to me, you focused almost solely on the comment I made about a "racial slur". That is unfortunate, as the issue I was trying to address was Beyond My Ken's behaviour, specifically, following me to an uninvolved user's ArbCom Candidate Discussion page, solely for the purposes of instigating a confrontation. His comments were baiting, off-topic and only served to disrupt the page, and hinder that user's chances at a fair election. This is both outreageous and completely inappropriate, yet was just as completely overlooked by you and the closing admin. While in light of the recent warning given to BMK for his behaviour, I believe sanctions are called for, but at the very least, he should have been given (another) stern warning for this conduct, and all of his comments should be removed from that page (it isn't just some talk page... ). This has nothing to do with that user, and is unfair to him.

Now, with that said, I would also like to address the "racial slur" comment. First, I will point that I prefaced that comment with the caveat "...(what is to me at least)...". That's important because I wasn't directly accusing him of using a racial slur so much as I was pointing out that his comment could certainly be considered a racial slur. It many circles, it is. You only need to type "pot calling kettle black" into Google, and in the drop-down menu that provides the top 10 most popular words to complete that, "racist" is ranked number 4. If you the go to look up the results of "pot calling kettle black" (without the word racist), there is a multitude of articles that discuss that idiom, as it relates to racism. Now, is this issue as important as the one I pointed out above? Maybe not, at least to some people. (Others could, and do, find that phrase to be offensive). Either way, among all who commented in that ANI, I am not the one who needs to be "educated" on this.

I will ask that you, please, consider these matters further, before simply dismissing everything outright. - ^theWOLFchild 20:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

My encouragement is still to avoid these pages all together(e.g. AN/I, ArbCom, etc.) if it all possible. My concern here is with the encyclopedia as a whole and how what you and Ken are doing affects it. And from what I can tell, it doesn't. As in this feud and these threads are superfluous and contribute nothing toward making Wikipedia batter. I'll be gone for a few days, but please consider spending less time on the editors and more time on editing. John Reaves 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're response is disappointing, to say the least. My comments addressed two separate, specific issues and if it is not too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you would take a moment, and provide two specific responses to those issues. You're the admin here... the one we all look to for policy insight and guidance. We look to you for solutions to problems. Ignoring the problem and telling me to "go away and be quiet", is not a solution. - ^theWOLFchild 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

bump. - ^theWOLFchild 05:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

These things work themselves out. John Reaves 02:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's... um, some great administering... Thanks. For nothing. - ^theWOLFchild 05:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC) (and wikipedia tilts yet another degree off center, as it continues to flounder... )

Hi John, Thank you for your edits at Matthew Bryden. As background info I wanted to make you aware that a number of editors have expressed concern about Middayexpress's editing on that article. More details are here at ANI if you care to look.[4] Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I'll continue to keep an eye on the article. John Reaves 16:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You may want to consider moving all the pages in the old category since your edit created a category redlink. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe, since the category was in a template when it was updated, it may take a few days for it to update. John Reaves 02:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it done automatically? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 07:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As I understand, it can take a few days for the server to update non-article space categories. John Reaves 16:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Was this file deleted here or on commons. Reason i ask is if on en.wiki under a fair use rationale i am wondering why, as there are deletion requests on commons in relation to theatre images with production photo's (virtually all due to nature of a theatre's business) and were being advised to move these to en.wiki with a fair use rationale.Blethering Scot 19:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted locally. It was uploaded as GFDL but was actually a derivative work and ineligible for free licensing. John Reaves 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.Blethering Scot 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, John. Please explain your rationale for your removal of "bogus" material on the Murphy page. Are you saying that the Krugman blog (which, while technically a blog, falls under a news site because it is published by the NYT) is an unreliable source, or that it does not reference Murphy, or what? Steeletrap (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I see Steeletrap did revert that material that is ever so questionable in BLP for reasons that several editors have explained to both of you repeatedly in several different sections on the talk page. I did say I would take this to BLPN if it was reverted again, but since an Admin did delete it and the article is under Austrian economics general sanctions, I'll wait and see what John Reaves wants to do about it first. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Since we're talking about "admins", I would remind you, User:Carolmooredc, that another Admin (User:Gamaliel) supported the inclusion of the Krugman material when this was debated a month ago. Blogs published by the New York Times are reliable sources; really they're blogs only in a technical sense, and for WP purposes fall under the purview of 'news site' RS. (Similar to an opinion column published on the Times website) I would also encourage you not to invoke appeals to authority ('but an admin agrees with me!') and other logical fallacies when arguing that an edit violates policy. Steeletrap (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gamliel at this diff put back in that Krugman allegedly mentioned Murphy himself. I guess like me and evidently other editors he didn't check the source to see that Krugman did not mention Murphy but only refers one to a self-published blog for the name of the individual of whom he speaks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_P._Murphy_re:_Paul_Krugman_quote Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask you to lift the full protection on this article? "Editors" who were removing the info have all been blocked as socks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Because this account was only used for Vandalism, please re-block this user indefinitely. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No. That's not a policy. John Reaves 19:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. John Reaves 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the facts about Fotouhi's corruption need to be contained somewhere they can be neatly jettisoned if his 'meatpuppets' game the system to hide the truth. But I'll play along, I'll write into the capsule you've designated. Because at least Wikipediots have no power over Crain's Detroit content. And because even if it accomplishes something, at least I will know that I knew something and didn't just keep quietly. Detroit Joseph (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I played along, I made the draft and placed it where you asked. But I suppose you've given Fotouhi's 'meatpuppet' Shobeir an out: Shobeir can say that the fact that Fotouhi prioritized the exercise of his authority over the safety of the building is not neutral in tone. But no one can dispute that's a fact. Detroit Joseph (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We have to present the facts, not your interpretation of the facts. -- John Reaves 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, John. Now I can turn my attention back to my usual Detroit interests. Detroit Joseph (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Farshad Fotouhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provost (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Could you explain why the above redirect wasn't deleted to make room for the WWE Championship article being moved? It's clearly an uncontroversial move. — Richard BB 19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It was brought (on IRC) that isn't uncontroversial. There is also World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). -- John Reaves 19:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

They're two different belts. The belt "WWE Championship" was renamed "WWE World Heavyweight Championship". The belt known as "World Heavyweight Championship" (under the article "World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)") has been officially retired. Now there is officially only one title, called "WWE World Heavyweight Championship", which the citations demonstrate. — Richard BB 19:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The similar titles seem like cause for discussion to me. I don't think it would hurt to host a discussion at the Wiki Project or other appropriate venue for a few days. -- John Reaves 19:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello John, thank you for blocking User: AffeL, they sure have been a pest for a while now. I feel you would be interested in knowing that AffeL has a sockpuppet account User: Affe97!, I am not sure if they should be swiftly blocked now or wait till he edits and continues the disruption. He has used the account as recent as yesterday. Notice the overlay of edits in R. Kelly related articles. STATic message me! 19:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked Affe97! indef. for the time being. -- John Reaves 19:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, I noticed that you have cleaned up above mentioned article. I was going through the edits and by mistake reverted your edits. This was an error and hence I reinstated it immediately back to what you had done. Just FYI Cheers AKS

John, I just realized that you are blanking big sections of this page even when it is properly referenced. Recently different users from unknown IP have been trying to do exactly the same. Any coincidence here? Cheers AKS

Dear John, I noticed that you have been blanking sections of the article quoting "not reliable source". If media reports (in print media) not a reliable source, then what is? Please help me understand. I have reverted the edits and request NOT to engage in an edit war. Lets discuss the matter in TalkPage before we conclude. Cheers AKS 07:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Arunsingh16:These sources are not remotely reliable, see WP:RS. These are not professional sources written to any sort of professional standard. There are serious BLP and NPOV violations here, if you revert again, you will be blocked. -- John Reaves 07:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I have revoked your rollback permission per the abuse at this page. -- John Reaves 07:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cheers AKS

This guy really wants attention. Ben ^Yes? 02:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Got him. -- John Reaves 02:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of an unblock notice from the talk page of someone you blocked is a serious breach of administrative conduct. You should leave the unblock notice for another admin to handle. Please be more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the block accordingly so that they may continue to disrupt. -- John Reaves 03:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a good answer. It's being discussed here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

re neutral pov and your mass reversion of my edits. all my edits are merely factual. i see no reason to delete the lily mariye/spouse reference or any of the recent award or record info. please undo your reversion. Barneyjones (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

i have adjusted a few edits. all facts. Barneyjones (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Utah housing corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It may seem impossible for my refactoring edit to have been an unintentional error, but it was. Otherwise, I fully agree that it would be wrong to do. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia editing and has been editing the "Devyani Khobragade incident". You have sent me a message accusing me of using copyrighted message. Please help me understand the specific violations that was done by me, so that I can learn from it. To my knowledge all the material that has been removed was written by me, based on news paper reports, which I have cited in the report. Please help me figure it out.

Thanks

Gnikhil98 (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)gnikhil98

Your edits closely paraphrased or copied your sources. We can only include original prose that accurately and neutrally interprets sources. -- John Reaves 18:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... I am sorry, I saw the update in the talk page by GabrielL only now. I understand it now. WIll fix it next time. Gnikhil98 (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC) gnikhil98

Hi, sorry but I have reverted your edit to the lead (which I am guessing was prompted by an email request) since there has been a RFC on whether or not to apply WP:FULLNAME to this BLP. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please look further down the page, if you wish to start a new RFC please familiarize yourself with the painfully lengthy archive, thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Thermal Man, what do you mean by "at AfD" or "Seems like a good article"? What do either of those have to do with anything? It was written by a banned user in contravention of his ban. End of story. Herostratus (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopediic merits of the article need to be considered. -- John Reaves 07:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Urk, no. That's a dagger directly into the heart of Wikipedia governance. Here's why: if the provision is made that merit-of-the-edit is an allowable exception to the general rule that blocked or banned editors can't edit at all, then the Wikipedia rapidly becomes ungovernable. It becomes ungovernable because then blocking and banning mean, essentially, nothing. Blocking and banning, easy as they are to evade, is about the only tool except for persuasion that we have in our already weak arsenal of governance tools. We need to hold the line on that.

"Not being ungovernable" is far more important to the Wikipedia than any particular edit or article being an asset. It's too bad because it's a lose-lose situation for us. But the loss of one good article is a lot easier to bear than the loss of our ability to be governed at all.

See what I'm saying? It's important to understand this! As an admin especially. You need to get on board with this. If you're still having trouble with this ask the other admins for guidance or something. There's no shame in not knowing everything right off, of course, in fact it's impossible, but assuming that you get my point now, let's restore the speedy tag.

(BTW here's the evidence connecting article creator User:That Amazing Guy to User:Bonkers The Clown. There may be other evidence, don't know. I think that Bonkers was originally blocked or banned for racist trollery, which is probably something that we don't want to much encourage, but not really up on the details. Whether the ban was justified or the two users really are the same is above my pay grade, but that's the received wisdom right now I believe, is a separate matter, and can be taken up later after the article's deleted if you want to.) Herostratus (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of this deletion criteria, I find that it is draconian, unproductive and overly bureaucratic. The sock is now blocked and we happened to get some content out of it. That being said, I will delete per the sound reasoning you've presented. I do hope understand where I am coming from. -- John Reaves 03:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I do. As I said, it's a lose-lose situation, which sucks. It's like cutting off your leg to save your whole body from gangrene. But people have to do that (or did, before antibiotics). But it pains me too. But I don't see any way around standing by G5, so thanks for the action. Herostratus (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could you please undelete this file for me. Permission is granted under ticket:2013122510008747. Thanks in advance. Natuur12 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a duplicate file so I added to information there. -- John Reaves 19:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okey, could you give me the link to the duplicate file so I can check everything and send a correct awnser? Natuur12 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Natuur12:File:Railroad, Sweden, TTC.jpg. -- John Reaves 22:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is a problem. Permission is granted fot the photograph but nor for the movie? or picture displayed at the white screen so I changed it to OTRS-received. Natuur12 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

On Nov 23 you accused me of vandalism and blocked me from editing wikipedia, because I tried to improve the article on Erotic Massage by removing info that was clearly off track. You even rejected my appeal of the matter. If you review the article now, you'll clearly see that user "Sjö" just removed the same info that I removed for the same reason I removed it. Please either block "Sjö" like you did me, or apologize to me for improperly accusing me of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.18.56 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I had considered making a separate article about the Z-grams, as you suggest; but was concerned it might be an orphan. I'm not sure many folks other than those on active duty with the US Navy at the time understand the significance of Z-grams in comparison with the much larger number who remember Zumwalt was blamed/credited for a major change in the United States Navy at a time of widespread national unrest about the Vietnam War.

It was a time of collision between a complex structure of appearance-based regulations evolved by a large standing navy with nothing better to do through a decade of peacetime prosperity, and the Presidential decision to abandon the sort of military victory assumed to be the real mission of the service. Personnel morale was collapsing because the arcane appearance regulations which might have been perceived positively if they contributed to mission success were instead being seen as a cause of mission failure. Zumwalt took office in July 1970 and began issuing the Z-grams immediately in abbreviated message format. Some of the Z-grams held independent status as orders, while others less definitively suggested interpretations of existing regulations without actually changing the underlying regulations.

The Z-grams actually covered a relatively broad range of subjects, but Z-gram 57 first stirred the best remembered hornet's nest; and is the focus of the majority of later references to Z-grams. Z-gram 57 was issued on 10 November 1970 broadly addressing Zumwalt's suggested approach to the twin issues of personal grooming (largely haircuts and facial hair deviating from second world war styles) and wearing of work uniforms between work sites and off-base housing. The latter was significant because poorly paid sailors working in a world of wet paint and oily machinery were generally required to change into a clean black or white uniform before going home at the end of their working day, but washing facilities were inadequate to do so within a reasonable time, so replacement costs of soiled uniforms were significantly impacting their standard of living.

Zumwalt's perspectives were clarified by Z-gram 70 on 21 January 1971, but the underlying regulations remained largely unchanged. The issue was further muddied when Zumwalt encouraged Naval Institute Proceedings to publish his staff's summary interpretations of the first 70 Z-grams with the May, 1971 issue. As disciplinary actions proceeded against sailors accused of violating grooming and uniform regulations, the alternative interpretations of the original regulations, Z-grams 57 and 70, and the Proceedings summary often prevented convictions and enforcement. This problem was obliquely addressed by Z-gram 102 on 22 December 1971, and in more detail by Z-gram 117 on 14 November 1972. I have been unable to locate summarized text of Z-grams 71 through 121, suggesting Zumwalt and the Navy regarded the Proceedings article as a mistake, and became more aware of the disadvantages of attempting expeditious unraveling of the regulatory morass created over the preceding quarter century.

Most of the above falls within the realm of original research, however; and I'm not sure whether the subject would be sufficiently notable for an independent article. With an inability to use primary sources, a separate article would likely generate divergent points of view from the less reliable references of later publications.Thewellman (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ScienceApe (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you protect the circumcision article? NE Ent 22:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the summary: " Edit warring / content dispute". -- John Reaves 22:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the point would seem to indicate it was your specific intent to prevent the readdition of the tag. Is that a correct inference? NE Ent 22:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. As stated in the summary and above, it was to prevent editwarring. -- John Reaves 22:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I see how that can be misconstrued now. It was to prevent the insertion of the tag in the sense that editors were warring over it, not in the sense that I care whether the tag is there or not. -- John Reaves 22:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Reason why we changed Aji Muhamad Sulaiman to Sepinggan you can check it on Twitter #SaveSepinggan. you are now protecting "the wrong information"

Your edits are problematic (as evidenced by the page history). Please use the talk page and discuss your edits. -- John Reaves 04:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Petrie (diplomat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I contact you for article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Aji_Muhamad_Sulaiman_Airport which you protect. For your info, the article above should still referring to sepinggan airport, not in reverse. The official name still sepinggan, while the new name still under proposal and not yet confirmed. There are no effidence or valid reference to state that the new name (sultan aji muhamad sulaiman) is official name. Please give me one valid reference, because i can give more which as reference for sepinggan airport name.

This article related to airport name has lead to long dispute in balikpapan even until governor level. Please refer to valid reference to keep wikipedia trustable source

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertwo (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

John, Approx 2 weeks ago I forwarded to the Wikipedia permissions email address an email sent to me by the photographer of the photo you deleted (photo of Barry Frey). The email from the photographer gives me full authorization to use the photo. The same photo also has been used, with the photographer's permission, on various news (example: http://adage.com/article/media/frey-named-ceo-digital-place-based-advertising-association/241594/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.71.214 (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey John, I have an article for Kaleido (band) from Detroitthat I need help revising before I try to post it on here. I do not want to go through process of getting it deleted, reported, etc. for not being written out proper... if you could please help me edit it so I can post it, would be a great help and I can pay you in some way.

I can send you what I have written out so far... please let me know if you can help.

Thank you,

Drew — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmbarcoMGMT (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The folks at Wikipedia:Articles for creation will review your article before it's published. Alternately, you can write it at User:EmbarcoMGMT/Sandbox and seek input before publishing. -- John Reaves 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:86.13.182.103 has to be someone's sock. I suspect it may be the same editor as User:95.39.221.187, User:107.4.100.132 and User:190.74.245.151. --evrik ^(talk) 20:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now commented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wicks Steve. --evrik ^(talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please place my two warnings back under the January 2014 heading where they were meant to be placed. You have removed them from under that heading [5] [6] twice now. --evrik ^(talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite your warning, Evrik is still rearranging my talk page, and he is still issuing threats. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, it is much appreciated. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. -- John Reaves 23:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to make a quick note showing how certain editors conspire to intimidate, much like they did before, forcing me to close that account. [7] 86.13.182.103 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This matter needs further attention as Evrik isn't going to let this go. [8] 86.13.182.103 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the situation. -- John Reaves 16:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You should, John. Keep your eye on this, too: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wicks_Steve, because some of us are bored with this guy now - and, with respect, blocking evrik was unnecessary - this is a "Mr. Angry" IP agitator, and poor old evrik just fell into his trap. In your position, I'd actually be apologising to evrik here - but it's an easy mistake, and I don't blame you for making it. Begoon ^talk 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Mark Arsten blocked the user, go ahead and throw your party hat on. -- John Reaves 01:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping the banhammer. Just a note--this is a reincarnation of Safwwefe (talk · contribs), who has been trolling me for a few months since when I was still an admin, I was the one who indef'd him in 2009 for a graphic death threat against President Obama. Could you reblock with email and talkpage disabled, given the circumstances? Thanks. 22:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC) HangingCurve ^{Swing for the fence}

Sure thing. -- John Reaves 22:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm at a loss understanding why this notable BLP was protected from recreation. Just because editors failed to do the necessary research to find good sources, and just because uninformed editors showed up to vote delete, doesn't mean the subject isn't notable for a separate article–it just means people didn't do their homework. More to the point, it seems pretty unusual to protect an aricle from creation, unless there is defamation or vandalism at work. Something seriously stinks here. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas:The article has been deleted (or redirected) three times in little over a year, twice via AfD and once via speedy deletion. I'm happy to undelete the deleted edits if you plan on bringing it up for deletion review or wish do use the old content to build an article that wont't be deleted. As far as the protection, its standard practice to use protection to prevent recreation. -- John Reaves 03:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. When you have a chance, could you email me the last good version or restore it as a subpage in my user space? Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I restored the deleted edits, I hope that helps. -- John Reaves 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

[9] Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the strange Wikipedia standard for Abby Martin, I have prodded James Delingpole for deletion. Surely, it will be deleted just like Abby Martin and redirected to The Daily Telegraph , right? Viriditas (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe WP:POINT and WP:Deletion review are the pages you are looking for. -- John Reaves 14:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the quality of sources is the same over at Delingpole. Yet he's a man, on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and favors corporate interests. Even though the sourcing is the same, he's not getting deleted and redirected, is he? Should be an interesting discussion, since most editors are male and on the right side of the political spectrum. Looks like Wikipedia has a serious bias against people like Abby Martin. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting theory. -- John Reaves 01:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I hate to bother you, but can you name a single BLP that's been protected from creation like this in the last six months? Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let me just look through the thousands of entries in the protection log from the last six months. -- John Reaves 04:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

He asked for one, not thousands... You sure like to respond to questions about/criticisms of your admin actions with sarcasm, don't you? (see your reply to me, above: [10]). Not a good look, imo - but carry on, I'm sure you have little care for this opinion too. Begoon ^talk 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My comment does not imply that he did asked for thousands. In order to find an example, as requested, I would have to look through the thousands of entries in the log, which cannot be sorted by BLP. -- John Reaves 16:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know she mentioned you by name on her show Breaking the Set? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKc-XEr0V9c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.135.22 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. What did she say? My computer is not outputting audio at the moment. -- John Reaves 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing against you personally. In this and the previous episode 304 she goes off on Wikipedia a bit. Here she states: "...the admins on Wikipedia have not just deleted my page but have moved to actually ban any future attempts for users to recreate it. Seriously. Take a look at this revisionism thread on their site. As you can see, the latest move by an admin named John Reaves yesterday made an edit to block all non-admin users to recreate my page indefinitely. Wow. Even if this isn't personal, at the very least this is obviously a decision based on personal bias." I don't know enough about the issue to take sides, but Abby is well known as a podcast guest on shows like the Joe Rogan Experience and the Disinfo podcast, and her news show on RT, Breaking the Set has 72,325 subscribers on youtube and many famous guests. I've seen people get Wikipedia pages for less. 71.226.135.22 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have to chime in here. I've reviewed quite a bit of information on this topic over the last couple of hours since seeing about this deletion on Martin's program this morning. I will agree that the article itself is a stub of an biographical page and had some very lousy links, but I feel that this alone does not provide grounds for page deletion or a permanent redirect for Abby Martin - but, rather, merely an update of the page, so that it is (stub or not), has better sources. After reviewing Wikipedia:Notability, I would say that the article in its pre-deletion form (per Unhappy idealist, edit made on 03:48 13 January, 2014) did meet the following criteria: Significant coverage (No further research is necessary to understand the topic after reading the Martin article), and Presumed (Martin seems to me to be a person who has enough notoriety to be article-worthy). One of the arguments made on the most recent deletion discussion was referring to the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information rule, which is a good rule, but does not apply in this case. It is hard to find ratings for Martin's show or RT on the open web, but their facebook pages have 1.2M and 41K fans respectively, which I think would make her a candidate (if somewhat weak) for a bio page. Back to the rules: the Martin article, I feel, did not meet the following criteria: Sources, Reliable, and Independence (sources were limited to her personal website, her facebook page, and a shaky secondary source about not being included in wiki enough). But these are fixable problems. This issue makes wikipedia look like we are trying to politically discriminate against a edgy talk show, and if the "topic" has the ability to broadcast on her show to (what I would assume) would be thousands of daily viewers in complaint that her page was deleted, then she is probably noteworthy enough to have a page about her. I am posting the above commentary on both your page, John Reaves, the admin who banned the page, and on the re-dir article's talk page. I ask you, John Reaves, what do you feel would be a reasonable change that could be made to this article to make it better fit the general Notability Guidelines? What steps can be taken for a re-evaluation of this article's deletion on the grounds that better citations can be added, as it appears that discussion on this topic has finalized. Thanks for your time. -- 7partparadigm ^talk 19:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

she is actually whining about a lack of Wikipedia page on her show? I sure hope that Stephen Colbert gets a whiff of this "scandal" - once he covers it and the media cover his coverage, then there will certainly be the third party sources to establish an article, but its pretty likely that Martin will be even more upset at how she looks so desperate clawing for attention than not having an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you watch the actual episodes before you go throwing out snarky insults. She said she doesn't care if she has a page, other fans are trying to get her a page. She's just pointing out bias and shady influence, like companies hiring editors to change data and anything not mainstream being suppressed. That's what her show does. The Colbert Report has nothing to do with anything, sounds like you're clawing for attention. 71.226.135.22 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue is also discussed on svwp (sv:Wikipedia:Anmäl ett fel). Even though I believe it was the right decision to lock Abby Martin I do not believe that the lock should be indefinite. This makes it impossible to recreate the article if she in the future should prove to be relevant. Would you please change it to one year? /Esquilo (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Indefinite" is simply an undetermined amount of time, not "infinite". It could be tomorrow, it could be 2020. -- John Reaves 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Is 31 hours really enough considering they've been warned for vandalism as far back as April 2012?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If vandalism continues, it'll be much longer. -- John Reaves 16:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I'll go look for my party hat. Seems easiest...Begoon ^talk 16:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the hall closet. -- John Reaves 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok - that's actually enough. You're tasked with, at your own request, and enjoy, administrator priveleges here. You've repeatedly responded in a dismissive way to genuine concerns. Poke me again. I'm in the mood. Begoon ^talk 16:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

All genuine concerns have been addressed. I don't appreciate your stalking and wikihounding. -- John Reaves 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

John, you're a legend. If that's really the best you can do, I wish you luck. Please don't block any more well meaning users before actually looking into the circumstances, please don't be sarcastic to users commenting on your admin decisions, and please respond constructively to questions on your admin actions. We'll get along just fine then, and you'll feel so much better about yourself. Consider apologies to those who you've (inadvertently?) wronged too. It's just a human thing, but simple, and means so much to the recipient. Have a nice day. Begoon ^talk 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day, sarcasm helps nothing, you're right (though I do consider it a form of humor), I am sorry about that. Petty edit warring at a talk page is far less helpful however and I stand by the block. Begoon, I hope you have a nice day as well and I hope we cross paths again under better circumstances as we do our small parts at this massive, noble behemoth of a project. -- John Reaves 16:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. Sarcasm is, indeed, a double edged sword. You wound me up pretty badly with yours. To be fair though, I wound you up pretty badly with mine. Guess that makes us even. You should still go apologise to evrik, though. My opinion on that is not going to change, That was a shitty block. He was a good guy drawn in by an IP agitator, and it sullies his record. It's unfair - he was acting for the pedia. Apart from that (which is up to your conscience), I'm happy - I'm glad we had this chat, and I'm glad we found a middle ground. A bientot. Begoon ^talk 17:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Once upon a time there lived a Wikipedia editor by the name Begoon . One day Begoon decided to leave some "helpful" edit summaries on a couple of edits he had reverted.[11] [12] One was so helpful, it was rewarded with a well deserved thank you note[13], although modesty prevented Begoon from being boastful.[14] So gracious a Wikipedian, Begoon vowed to reciprocate the gesture, and sure enough, with a little help from his buddies, was able to in no time at all.

Watch your back John, this Begoon snake is waiting to bite. 142.0.71.250 (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Begoon. -- John Reaves 05:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, John. We'll meet in better circumstances. I look forward to that. Begoon ^talk 14:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Flat Out let's discuss it 06:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there John-- User:Lexi1231fresh is on my watchlist because I realized how much vandalism they were doing. You blocked Lexi a few weeks ago. Lexi just posted an unblock request but didn't put the template for unblock so it probably won't be seen. Just lettin' ya know! -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

That's probably a good thing. -- John Reaves 20:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

John, there's something wrong with your move for the DYK queues. First, the next queue up is 2, not 1. Second, you're supposed to move the entire contents of the prep, not just certain sections, and then add a DYKbotdo template to the top—as Gatoclass noted here when someone else new had done it incorrectly, "just copy the whole page over".

If you're not sure how to do this, it's probably best to revert what you've done and wait for a more experienced admin to handle it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

All is fixed now, I believe. -- John Reaves 22:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That's silly - he played 80% of his career there as well earned more degrees from NCSU. If other football players have multiple colleges, Wilson should too. I'm happy to keep changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrb599 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catches on this Oldnick5 character. I'm not seeing anything constructive and they seem bent on numerical vandalism. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the trickiest vandalism out there. -- John Reaves 04:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits are infrequent, but most of them are reverted vandalism. Expand PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've extended it by 6 months. -- John Reaves 15:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech }} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech }}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kyungpook National University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/09/05/2011090501013.html Korea Makes Strides in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ya dumb bot. -- John Reaves 14:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. To put a fitting twist on it, you could have extended the block to Nov. 22. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We'll try that when he comes back in 6 months ;). -- John Reaves 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect he's got other socks, so we'll see how it all works out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• So, does he get a blocked notice on his talk page? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No need, they've been blocked before so there is no room for confusion. MediaWiki:Blockedtext will show all of the relevant information that is contained in a notice. -- John Reaves 21:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Aah. Very well then. It just all looked kinda abrupt with no warning. If you are sure it is some sock who knows the score, then I am sure it is fine. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please revoke talk page access? Werieth (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like NawlinWiki and I reblocked at the same time. -- John Reaves 20:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you really going to edit war over this new addition to the article? BRD still applies.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No. -- John Reaves 14:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

John, I do not understand why this was deleted. The podcast is one of the top comedy shows on iTunes, and is a relevant piece of satire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe3guy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, John; I noticed that you moved a couple of Afc submissions to mainspace, but you may not have noticed that they still have deletion templates on them. Hopefully the admins will realize that G13 is not appropriate for articles, but to be safe you may want to remove the templates. Thanks for helping out with the backlog of old submissions. 04:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, my computer died (finicky power adapter) shortly after I moved them, along with my open to-do tabs, so I went to bed in protest. -- John Reaves 14:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

John, can you please at least give me the text of this entry back?Joe3guy (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Heck, more than that, there's no way to justify this as an A7 deletion given the Louisville inside source. Undelete the article or I'll open a DRV. Your action was way out of line. Wily D 08:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you asked so nicely Wily. -- John Reaves 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, yes, I was a little irritable. Wily D 15:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear John.

You have been deleted, speedy delete the article title "Syed Riaz Ahmed Hasnani Naqshbandi", i need help to restore this article, this article belongs to our grand saint, and his biography is verifiable as you required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizora786 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to nuke the talk page too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You added an OTRS tag here and indicated that people wishing to use the image must attribute the author (Attribution-ShareAlike licence). However, it doesn't say who the author is, so there is currently no way for people to use the image, essentially making it unfree. Could you take a look at this? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed the permission back to pending pending receipt of this information. -- John Reaves 21:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello John Reaves. Considering the activities of Banclark1, Banclark2, Banclark3, and Banclark4: your block of Banclark4 seems erroneous at 31hours. Do you agree? Thanks for considering this. Sincerely—John Cline (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree. Amended to indefinite. -- John Reaves 21:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Noindexed pages