User talk:JohnC

Hi John good to see you made it. Looks like you're finding your way round no problem. :) —Christiaan 08:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand

Hi, You might want to consider adding {{User NZ res}} to the top of your user page, which will add you to this category automatically and also add a nice graphic. Onco_p53 00:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi John, please look at my question under Talk:Extraordinary rendition#Terminology.2C_again. Thanks. Kosebamse 07:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue fly Tail

Hi - I was wondering if you could re-write that paragraph as I can't make heads or tails of it. If you could just say what it means in simple language. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 01:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during January 11 2007 (UTC) to War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. It seems most, if not all, of your edits tonight are highly POV. Please read Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and no original research. AuburnPilot^talk 05:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Paul Watson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Terrillja _talk 07:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Sonny Bono. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Terrillja _talk 07:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TERRORIST

Please read WP:TERRORIST. Wikipedia generally avoids using the word "terrorist" in the narrative voice unless attributing it to a source. Please don't add it to articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anti-semitism and anti-zionism

Hi John,

If I say antisemitism I mean antisemitism not anti-zionism. I have a great deal of personal experience of both and can make the distinction.

To suggest otherwise is patronising and offensive.

Telaviv1 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surafend affair

Hi, re: your comment at Talk:Surafend affair, can you elaborate on which part(s) you consider to be POV? I'm happy to edit the article to remove any bias, but it's not clear from your statement what you consider non-neutral. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, --Canley (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page questions

Hi, I removed your comments to the Peak oil talk page because they do not address improvement of the article or discussion of the sources (see wp:NOTFORUM). If you have questions, feel free to pose them to the reference desk. By the way, you seem to be conflating several different topics and concepts. Read the article if you're not sure exactly what "Peak oil" means. NJGW (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

Please sign your posts to talk pages. You can do this by either typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking on the signature button above the edit box. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Olga Stringfellow

The article Olga Stringfellow has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ravendrop 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Hello, JohnC. Just letting you know that I replied to your comment on the Pedophilia talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

Hello John. As a courtesy I want to let you know that I have nominated John Cox (lawyer) for deletion because of concerns about Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Autobiographies, and so forth. Please don't take this as a personal slight -- I'm nominating the article solely for policy concerns. Thanks --Neutrality^talk 03:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to White nationalism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Greenman (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Talk:Katie Price, you may be blocked from editing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hi. I just removed 2 of your comments on Talk:Anita Bryant. Talk pages are not a place to engage in a discussion about politics, sexuality, or, really, anything else. Talk pages are to discuss improvements to the attached article. Per WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX, off topic comments can and will be removed. There are thousands of places on the internet where you can get involved in arguments about homosexuality, politics, etc. Wikipedia is not one of them. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to sign every post you make on a talk page. You do this by typing four tildes, which will look like ~~~~. That will automatically add your name and time of posting, which is necessary to make threaded conversation possible. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Irish Republican Army are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you're still doing it (which I warned you about last month), on Talk: Hung (TV series). Your behavior is beginning to cross over into disruptive territory, and could result in you being blocked. You have to understand, Wikipedia is not a site for general discussion. Find an online chat/politics/debate site, and leave your comments there. Use Wikipedia talk pages only to discuss improvements to articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Re: your recent deletions of sourced content, addition of unsourced opinion, and use of talk pages for commentary, it seems that the above suggestions and warnings are neither understood or heeded. I'll request administrative overview. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Archived ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#User JohnC --Chris (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a one and only warning. Read Wikipedia's policy on verification. Do not remove sourced content (as here [1]) without going at once to the article talkpage to explain why it was a good idea. Do not add unsourced content. Especially, do not add unsourced content to articles about living people. Wikipedia is not the thought police - editors are entitled to whatever views they hold. However, editing against basic policy and with the apparent aim of advancing one point of view is likely to result in sanctions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

block should not have been imposed at same time as warning being given. Allegation of trolling is disputed. There was no intent to provoke emotional responses, or otherwise disrupt normal on-topic discussion - Wikipedias own definition of trolling. Deletions were only made of uncorrobberated comments which were themselves contentious - such as the example given above

Decline reason:

You were blocked days after your last warning. You have had previous warnings, and ample time to change your behavior. Your unblock request fails to convince any administrator that you understand why you were blocked and that you will modify your behavior if you are unblocked. As for trolling, the recent evidence here and [2] are clear and obvious enough. One does not use talk pages to leave disparaging comments that have nothing to do with improving an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block should not have been imposed at same time as a warning was given. The allegation of trolling is disputed. There was no intent to provoke emotional responses, or otherwise disrupt normal on-topic discussion - Wikipedias own definition of trolling. Deletions were only made of uncorrobberated comments which were themselves contentious - such as the example given above. Wikipedia policy states that blocks are to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. The examples of justifications for blocking given on the policy page are far more extreme than I have been accused of - and relate to articles, not talk pages, which themselves often contain very robust debate. There was neither damage nor disruption caused by me. I do admit that I have been outspoken on talk pages, and perhaps too hasty to remove what I felt was unsourced and incorrect information in articles. I would be more careful in future. I also note that blocks are not meant to punish, yet it appears that this was precisely why the block was imposed in my case - I must have expressed views which offended against the political views of someone.

Decline reason:

This block was clearly placed to prevent disruption and, honestly, trolling. I'm sorry that this feels like normal discourse to you. As long as you are unaware of the problematic nature of the edits, then the likelihood of repeating the disruption makes it unwise to consider an unblock. Please do not remove declined requests from this page; this is stated explicitly in the notice. Kuru (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I note that none of the reasons which I have given for being unblocked appear to have been mentioned, or even considered. Over the many years that I have been using Wikipedia I have read many edits and more particularly comments on talk pages which are outrageous, opinionated and inflamatory, and far more worthy of blocking than anything I wrote. I request that the unilateral decision to permanently block me from Wikipedia be reviewed. It is an extreme punishment for an offense which is not extreme. The suggestion that I am unaware of the problematic nature of the edits is simply incorrect. And the implication that I was going to, or had, removed declined requests from the page an uncalled for criticism.}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have requested a review of the justice, appropriateness or need for the permanent block. I do not understand what the request "Please include a decline or accept reason" means, assuming that it is a response to my request. Incidentally, I might add that according to my profile page I have made 1501 edits - only a handful have been objected to

Decline reason:

If you cannot understand what was wrong with your edits then it is not going to be in Wikipedia's best interest to unblock you. That others may have behaved badly does not excuse your behavior, see WP:NOTTHEM. This is not a unilateral decision, you have been told by numerous users what was wrong with your edits, you just don't want to hear it. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I repeat that the reasons which I have already given for asking to be unblocked appear to have been disregarded, as did my earlier requests and arguments. The erroneous suggestion that I "cannot understand what was wrong with your edits" clearly confirms this, as does the claim that I "have been told by numerous users what was wrong with your edits". I have several times addressed the reason for the block, and also pointed out that a permanent block is supposed to be an extreme measure, only used in exceptional cases - this cannot be one of them. The decisions to continue the block may or may not be unilateral - I have no idea, as they are made in secret

Decline reason:

No, the decisions aren't made in secret-they're made in public, right here, on your talk page. Looking above at this page, you have been warned numerous times for making offensive comments, for making comments in direction violation of WP:BLP, for removing valid sourced content to push a POV, and for attempting to turn WP into your own little WP:SOAPBOX. You have never once indicated that you understand what was wrong with your. Nor have you indicated how, if unblocked, you would change. Please note that if you should make another unblock request without addressing the substance of the block, I or someone else will revoke your talk page privileges. After that, you'll have to appeal directly to WP:ARBCOM. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

One unblock request is sufficient

Please pick one and remove the other or remove both and post another. Tiderolls 12:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]