Jump to content

User talk:John Cline/(09-13-2013)–(12-31-2013)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Userpage
John Cline
Originally know as user:My76Strat
Talk archives spanning (09-13-2013)–(12-31-2013)
Talkpage

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

[edit]

Results after RfA

[edit]

Just an FYI, within 4 days after RfA, the Lua module was changed on 21 September 2013 (dif935) for various issues, but also ignored the growing 75% consensus of nearly 3 weeks (see: WT:CS1#RfC) which concluded to re-suppress red-error messages in 60,000 pages (as done 5 months ago), but now extending beyond 27 days from the update which revealed the messages by "hidden=false" (dif410) to display thousands of trivial error messages in major articles. I guess the WT:CS1#RfC could be allowed to drag out a full 30 days, until 4 October, and then expect a prompt implementation of the consensus viewpoint. However, the eyesore of the bizarre messages should have been stopped weeks ago (as noted in the RfC).
I have already advised, for deciding the general RfA process, when people state, "Oppose" then that means they were not convinced of the claim to need a single-purpose use of the tools, rather than making a hollow, philosophical protest against editing of protected files (as a throw-away !vote). The 'crats need to respect every Oppose (unless frivolous, "Oppose because I missed lunch"). Otherwise, we indeed see new powers used to edit a protected module against 75%(!) obvious consensus (after 5 months of discussions), to affect 2.1 million pages. Anyway, in this case it worked quickly to open the door and see where they go, in 4 days. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above courtesy. I will review the included links and opine if deemed appropriate. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Byrd Spilman Dewey

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Byrd Spilman Dewey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Abecedare (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review the updated page ? Feel free to edit and tweak the language of Alt 3 in-place. Abecedare (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response and, more broadly, for guiding the DYK nomination through. The process took longer than it ideally should, but hopefully the effort was worthwhile. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for submitting this and all the work you did on improving the article. Just yesterday I found an additional "Judith Sunshine" article I am now on the hunt for in different archives. I am one of the authors of Pioneering Palm Beach, so the story was known to me. I am in the process of compiling an anthology of all her writings - I would like to give you a copy of the book. Flahistory (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an uplifting surprise for me! I would be thrilled to have a presentation copy of your work; I am thrilled to have collaborated with you!—in producing this encyclopedic telling of an interesting, and important historical person. I hope you will find reason to continue supporting Wikipedia with similar gifts of knowledge; and the inspiration of your wholesome zeal. I share Abecedare's sentiments, in full—with respect to your fidelity to the subject of your writing. You certainly have commanded my esteem; which shall remain.—John Cline (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, John Cline. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

[edit]

RFA stats

[edit]

Hi. Your RFA stats (example) seem to be mis-counting deleted edits. It'd be helpful if you could provide attribution for the stats, unless you did the counting yourself. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; thank you for pointing this out to me. I will make a correction right away.—John Cline (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MZMcBride. Please review this edit and tell me if the inclusion of the header and footer information added would have alleviated your concern had I posted it this way at first? If it does not alleviated your concern, I have misunderstood something and will need to request some clarification. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great, thank you! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ga.legis

[edit]

A short note to thank you for your work on this template. I saw that it was under discussion, but wasn't able to determine what, if anything, was the final outcome. Since the template is still in use at Georgia General Assembly, may I make one small suggestion: could you change the shade of the blue/red colors? The emplate calls. red appears rather pink, and the blue is a light baby blue. Is there a darker/brighter red and perhaps a royal blue in your palette? The member number (color) that appears inside these colors could be changed from black to white, to maintain visibility. Also, "seats" should probably be removed from "Assembly seats" to fit the phrase on one line, and allowing for the other two headings (Senate seats. House seats) to move up one slot to their appropriate spots. Gulbenk (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gulbenk for this moment; where kindness reigns. And the sanctuary of peace overwhelms the mundane stress of daily disregard—because you saw value in my efforts; extending a note of gratitude. The short answer to your question follows the TfD's close; which was delete. Related matters are on hold until a BOT tasking is prepared, to carry out a smooth transition for the entire series of Georgia state government articles that were programed to feed off {{Ga.legis}}'s template calls.

I did have purposeful resolve during the several weeks I worked this endeavor; measuring strides of progress while accomplishing goals and reaching benchmarks that become the thing tangible. I am not a template aficionado, and determination alone brought the template's form and function to the level I needed; to efficiently pursue my ultimate goal. That goal was always: to make the Georgia article series a robust example of one of our very best.

Ironically, one argument for deletion asked: why ought Georgia have something different when the status quo works well enough for other states? I wanted to reply, but did not; for I was thinking "duh, are things no longer self apparent? Must the premise assume 'well enough' is the loftiest goal I would pursue?" I had reached a similar conclusion regarding the "party colors" as you expressed, even editing the colors to match hues used by each party's logo. I suspect they would have closely aligned with the colors you described as well; viewable in this example. That edit was promptly reverted with an edit summary stipulating adherence to the existing colors called by the {{Party shading}} template—the colors now used.

Changes to that template would literally affect 1,000s of articles and lists, meaning it would need the consensus support of an RfC to properly be accomplished. Sadly, the prevailing wind of an ass hat class has condemned Georgia's legislative article series to mediocrity, squashing my ambition in its path. I did incorporate your suggestion to ensure the content renders on its appropriately corresponding line, though it rendered correctly in my browser as it was. I hope it improved your browser's view as well.

Thankfully, the redeeming value embodied in your sentiments, derived by sincerity and kind inclinations, have lifted my spirits greatly; sufficient that I may be able to reciprocate with efforts anew. Notwithstanding tomorrow's uncertainty, your good deed of today, coming at the most perfect time, will remain endeared to me; taking its place amongst the fondest of my fond Wikipedia memories. May the best of times be at your fore; in fulfilling abundance.—John Cline (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

[edit]
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Byrd Spilman Dewey

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Georgia General Assemblies

[edit]

Hello again John Cline. I hope that you have time for this small request for help. The above referenced template is used in a series of articles that I have been working on. It lists Assemblies from 1 to 152. Most of the Assemblies are just placekeepers, so far, until I can contruct articles for them. But I would still like to have the template in proper order, for the purpose of the best possible presentation. And there's the rub. For some reason, the template will not display Assemblies 110 and 116. Those numbers are included, when one goes into edit mode, but they don't display. I'm not a template person, and I simply can't come up with the (probably simple) fix. Could you help? I really am sorry to bother you with this, but I thought it would be a very quick matter for someone with your level of skill. Best regards! Gulbenk (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gulbenk. I looked at the template and can not duplicate the problem as you described it. The 110th and 116th shows on all of the blue-linked articles I checked. Please reevaluate the problem and let me know more details about when it seems to work and when it fails. I'd be happy to help fix any problem I am able to identify. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very strange. When I looked at the template, today, it was just fine (just as you observed). I thought that you had fixed it, so I looked at the edit history. Nothing new in quite some time. So, whatever it was (yesterday) that created that odd display (and missing data), it's now gone. Quite odd. The only thing I've done in the past 24 hours is to add a new article 144th Georgia General Assembly, in a rather slow effort to fill out the list. Could this have had any effect? If no, then I'm stumped. As you suggest, I'll keep an eye on the template. If it changes again, I'll let you know. THANK YOU for your offer of help. Hopefully I can reciprocate in some way. Cheers! Gulbenk (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely! Sometimes bugs come and go before we even knew there was a problem You'd have to monitor the tech channel at irc to see much of the behind the scenes action. The page you created was fine, and a needed page; thank you. If I may suggest that when you do create such a page, please also create the talk page, as I have done for this one. It will ensure it is added to the Georgia Wikiproject as well. Any questions you come upon are welcome to be asked of me; I will always be eager to see Georgia's encyclopedic presence improved in this Wikipedia.—John Cline (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind of you. Again, thanks. I have created several additional Talk pages, as you suggested. It just didn't occur to me, previously, to bother with that. I'll not make that mistake in the future. I've even joined the Georgia Wikiproject. I've been spending all my time on Georgia-related articles, so might as well sign up (officially). I'm something of an old dog, but I'm open to the idea of learning a few new tricks. Gulbenk (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to future collaborations that will undoubtedly prove themselves a path to mutual betterment.—John Cline (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. I am interested and will comment at that discussion. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

[edit]

David Kazhdan's road accident

[edit]

Dear Mr. Cline,

I'm afraid it's true. I've added a reference in David Kazhdan wikipedia entry, but it's in Hebrew (from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz). I'm also not sure that the format of the reference is acceptable.

Yours,

Ehud Schreiber.

Regarding 194.90.227.5 (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)][reply]

I understand. It is simply that when information has such a potential to affect the living subject as well as living family members exposed to it, we require independent verification. Foreign sources are accepted on good faith and we have a diverse community who can assist with improvements and fact checking.—John Cline (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, John Cline. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requested articles.
Message added 16:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since you commented on my previous message there, here's a follow-up to the script I'm considering writing for WP:RA ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 16:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Pooler, Georgia

[edit]

Category:People from Pooler, Georgia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William 23:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Took me a few read-throughs of the name to get it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Calmer Waters 06:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly welcome. I reviewed the account's creation and their first edit; agreeing with you that vandalism was not clearly associated. I chose wp:uaa to file my report which coincidently posted at the exact moment as the wp:aiv report. Thank you for assuming enough good faith to give it a second, let alone third look.—John Cline (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

[edit]

Typical anglo-american hypocritical and hysterical behaviour, no sense of humor at all

[edit]

i need say no more, you are never succeeding in your quest for politically correct ultra human indidual rights world, so f off!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.116.32 (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, who's this? Another IP or an editor with an account? Anyway, great edit at Viriditas's talk page, which is why I came here. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had removed the IP's comment; it was the rant of a vandal who created an attack page fomenting racial hatred and did not appreciate seeing its rejection. Regarding my comment in reply to Viriditas, I felt it was appropriate; enough to risk dissenting replies. I am glad however, that instead I see your approval; considering it a strong endorsement—I thank you for it.—John Cline (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was late

[edit]

You caved too quickly:) Sorry I didn't see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Third_party_advocation, not that I'm pretending that my lone voice would make a difference, but maybe it would help encourage others. I hope it arises again. Would you please ping me if you are inspired to try again (asking so you won't be guilty of canvassing).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sentiments here, and did reply to your comments there. I was quick to acknowledge the emerging consensus, which was not unanticipated. I did not "cave" on my position, though I will admit the thread is devoid the "good fight", I have yet to levy. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

[edit]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

[edit]
Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dushasana: 28 October 2013

[edit]

While I agree that the part about Dushasana's legacy is a little too much, the part explaining why Bhima danced around his body is relevant. It also brings up Dushasana's actions on the 13th day of battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.139.43 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with the edit was the lack of an included reference and the use of "immoral" in characterizing the actions. Wikipedia uses a neutral point of view when presenting facts and does not endeavor to teach morals.—John Cline (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't history, it is a story. Also, clicking on the Abhimanyu link will tell the reader why it was an immoral killing (as the story itself says it is an immoral killing).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.139.43 (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, however, even a plot summary can (and should) be presented using a neutral voice. If it is presented simply as "immoral", it is Wikipedia saying the actions were immoral; if it is attributed to an independent source, it is their characterization, not ours. Considering your edit which said: "where they danced around the corpse of Abhimanyu after killing him immorally.", it would be neutral when presented as: "where they danced around the corpse of Abhimanyu after killing him in what the book described as immorally." I hope this helps to describe the neutral voice we demand of editors.—John Cline (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrymandering

[edit]

Hi

Re your reversion of my edit / correction to the United Kingdom section of the gerrymandering article. Please note boundary reviews in the UK are performed by the four UK Boundary Commissions, at the direction of parliament, and not by the Electoral Commission as currently / previously stated. Can you please explain your reason for reverting the article to the earlier erroneous version ? 83.104.51.74 (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inquiring this of me. After reviewing the reversion, I did not see anything that would have prompted me to believe a reversion was appropriate. I think it was an accident where I clicked the wrong button; which I apologize for having done. I have undone my edit which reinstated the article to its condition before my edit. Thank you again.—John Cline (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Curious tag removal

[edit]

Re your message: I noticed that, too, and I put it back. Cyberbot I patrols for missing AfD templates, but occasionally it does not put it back in twice as needed at Download youtube videos. I do not believe that it patrols for missing TfD templates. I'm not sure if it either didn't notice or if there was some kind of throttle that made it not put it back in. The bot does not appear to cover TfD template removal as I don't see any edits in the Template namespace where it put it back in. I suspect it doesn't monitor TfDs because removal is probably fairly rare. This editor has a habit of removing deletion discussion templates, so I've got all of the articles/templates in my watchlist.

I agree that the editor is likely heading towards a block for being an advertising only account and/or disruption of deletion discussions and that some administrative action is probably necessary in the future. Since I nominated one of their articles and my own very wide reading of WP:INVOLVED, I prefer not to apply any block myself. I'm trying to avoid the "That admin is out to get me and used their buttons to do it." type of argument. I saw your CSD tagging of Template:Download Youtube Video Using 3 Different Methods-Downloading Method‎ and I completely agree with the tag, but for the same reasons I would prefer that another admin handle the deletion. You might want to bring them up at WP:ANI. I'm sure another admin would be happy to review their edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand your reasonable reply—and agree.—John Cline (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see everything has been handled on WP:ANI. I'm glad that see it all taken care of. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with kudos to admin Shirt58 for his apparent diligence identifying the additional disruption of malware hazards. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

[edit]

Optimist! You apparently think that the "community" will find a way to deal with Eric Corbett. They will. They will argue about him. To think that they will do anything more conclusive is to have noble faith in a will-o-the-wisp. Good luck, sir. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero optimism regarding the entire matter; but I am committed to realistic assessment—and it is utterly certain that "the community will find a way to deal with Eric Corbett"; and John Cline; and Robert McClenon—by way of a shitstorm in progress—until reaching a shitty end. Good luck to you sir, as well!—John Cline (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SyedNaqvi90

[edit]

Hello John, that account was my previous account that was hacked and I was blocked. I just wanted to remove all the personal information over there. Since I requested an unblock to deactivate my accounts can you please guide me through. I have wasted alot of my precious time on Wikipedia editing pages that are not even educating and controversial, thank you. Pakistani47 (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 162.206.133.118

[edit]

Your changes to my corrections on "home Invasion" are unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.133.118 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide a reference for verification when substantially changing existing content; itself, presumably referenced.—John Cline (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

[edit]

Italian Social Republic

[edit]

Hello, I'm John Cline. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Italian Social Republic, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —John Cline (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw in the article history, that considering the time between my last issue there, and your reversion, you probably relied on my first edition, in which I mistakenly pressed the "Save Page" button instead of "Show Preview".
As in my last edition, I added references with a view in google books, in addition to eliminate several duplicate links, I ask for you review your reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.203.118 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I removed "Japan and their puppet states" as non-neutral verbiage.—John Cline (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 24.228.94.117

[edit]

You are in no position to edit the factual truth that I added to Criminal section of Jews, Levi Aron is a Jew, and he is a criminal. This is an open community, and the world needs to know about him. If we can have a section that lists Muslim criminals, Jewish criminals should also be allowed. I'll escalate this further if you edit the FACT again.

Added Levi Aron, who is a Jew that killed a child and ate his parts[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.94.117 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up McGraw—John Cline (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, the article in question is a List of Lists, not a list of individuals. This isn't some other article; see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Jayjg. I have been observing the changes since my Huggle introduction mentioned above. If not for having been approached in such bad faith, I'd gladly had responded with the IP in a collaborative tone. At the same time, the substance of the IP's angst isn't about wp:oce; but rather, an article wp:series. In my opinion, any argument for uniform structure within an article series is an argument with merit. Because this list is different from the others within the series, the entire editing paradigm changes for an editor, especially an IP, as they can not create the page that would properly host the list. I could; or you, though I had decided to leave it for regular contributors of the list to resolve.—John Cline (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Knudsen

[edit]

Hello again, John Cline. It seems that I only come to your Talk page asking favors. This will be no different. I noticed that you have submitted several DYK nominations (with some success!). That would indicate that you also review DYK nominations. I recently started doing that, as well. My first review was Ivar Knudsen. It had a weak hook, and some referencing issues, but otherwise looked okay. I fixed the references, and suggested a stronger hook. I then considered my involvement with the article, and determined that I had a COI. I could not, in all fairness, pass judgement on a hook that I had suggested. So I posted a notice to that effect, and asked for another reviewer to make the final decision. And there the matter stayed. No movement, no final review. The nominator should have a resolution (up or down) on this matter, and my hands are tied. Could you look at the nomination, and give the guy a thumbs up or thumbs down? I imagine you'll want to look into other aspects of the submission as well (just to make sure I did my homework), but it shouldn't take any time at all. It is a very small article, with perhaps four references. If you are involved with other matters, and can't find the time, I totally understand. But you were my first thought. Best regards! Gulbenk (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gulbenk. I will look at it directly. Never hesitate to ask something of me. It is no inconvenience at all; rather it is a thing I enjoy.—John Cline (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, John! I saw your work; perfect. It extends the proper consideration to the nominated article and user. I hope that I can reciprocate, should you ever need that. Best regards Gulbenk (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, the reason I included that Danish language encyclopedia reference is that it mentions "Ptomaine poisoning, which was thought at the time (wrongly, it turns out) to cause food poisoning. I don't pretend to speak the language, but noticed the cognate in the text. As for "business trip", I read that somewhere too...but didn't add the reference...and should have.Gulbenk (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; the foreign language source is fine and can be accepted on good faith. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, you might think twice before agreeing to do me any more favors. I roped you into this with the line that it was a small matter that "shouldn't take any time at all". I greatly appreciate the cheerful way you go about the task, and I've learned a few things in the process. Again, thanks. Gulbenk (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work for hire

[edit]

John - I'm not sure if you saw I replied to you, but if I understand you right, you're saying that because I wrote it and someone else posted it that they are claiming credit for my work and are thus plagiarizing me. That could be the case except that the agreement I had with this person was a work for hire agreement which means I was commissioned to create an original work with the agreement that the copyright would be owned by the person hiring. It's a pretty common thing.--v/r - TP 00:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. But even if it wasn't, I very well could've licensed it to the guy as a CC-0.--v/r - TP 00:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings TP. I did see your reply; within the hour, and am preparing my reply. I will post that reply upon completion; soon I suspect. Until then, be well; remaining well for all that comes after—too. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

[edit]

Vandalism

[edit]

It seems you have an IP friend that has been vandalizing your Userpage. I took the liberty of asking for temporary semi protection. I hope you don't mind, just wanted to give you a heads up Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re

[edit]

In regards to your revert-I did give you a legitimate explanation in the edit summery. Did I simply add the information wrong or something, because as said I directed to the episode as reference in the edit summery (sound a bit redundant I know). Blast Forth (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically are you trying to say it needs to be rephrased a bit? Blast Forth (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for inquiring these things of me. Please let me review a few things and then prepare an answer. It is not impossible that I may have made a mistake, and I can see by your contributions that you are interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of a topic of your apparent interest, and since I am not familiar with the topic, an undoubtedly better understanding. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm not trying to ever come off irritated or angry, so I am sorry if I came off a little annoyed. If you need me to elaborate after you've reviewed a few things, I can do so. Blast Forth (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind respite while I looked closer at the aforementioned reversion. I did err in reverting your edit, and apologize to you for the aggravation caused. I am very glad seeing you create your account as I was planning to ask that you consider creating an account; the topic of your interest looks like it will benefit. Normally I would restore content if I removed it in error but this situation presents interesting extenuations that prevent me in good conscience from doing so.

Firstly, the references are in a language I can not understand, and secondly, the presentation of the information has several elements that belie the tenets of encyclopedic Wikipedia content. The most ominous thing is prose that appears to be your interpretation; unto the conclusion of a thing implied.

This strains a few policy facets like: WP:OR, which suggests you can not include things that have not been written first by some other reliable source and WP:SYNTH, which suggests you can not reach a conclusion of your own accord by reading and watching different things to then state something implied, but otherwise never said. Feel free to restore the content as you feel appropriate, but please ensure that you understand how to write in an encyclopedic tone using a neutral Wikipedia voice. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to find a english sub version of episode 4, there is one on youtube. It's in 3 parts, but you minus well watch the entire episode to understand what I'm saying. I'll elaborate anyway, when a person says they won't put up with someones sexual harassment today, that means they've allowed and played along with it times before, and to add on to this the person was acting total seductive when diserning the other person was trying to get them drunk. It's not exactly original research when anyone can see the same thing in an episode in terms of what a character says or what happens (if we were talking about characters having feelings for eachother, I would take some evidence and put it on a neutral ground, but I can't do that for something like this when it's very blatant and even shown).Blast Forth (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Blast Forth, I understand your position on this, and agree with your conclusion. If I had been able to verify the things you said, I would have restored the content myself. Since I was unable to verify the information from the source, I chose to allow you to restore it, ensuring that you were aware of the relevant policy that governed its inclusion. It is not required that I personally verify the content, only that it be verifiable; this allows the support of foreign language publications and gives me the leverage to accept their validity by an assumption of good faith. To reiterate, it was an error that I reverted you in the first place; the best product of my error was our introduction for I am encouraged by the creation of your new account, and your demonstrated good intentions. I certainly wish you the best, and remain available if you have any questions moving forward. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worry's. I'm going to go ahead and mark this page as a followed one. I'll come to you if I have a problem dealing with someone-I would try to talk to them first though. In the past I got a huge headach dealing with unregistered users whom just removed content without even explaining why. Blast Forth (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 173.228.127.12 comment

[edit]

Hi John, Please attempt to install Unblocker before marking my changes as "not constructive". Then, when you have also spent a significant amount of your evening uninstalling now ad-ware infested software from your machine, we can have a fair discussion of whether or not my changes are worthwhile. I believe warning potential users of installation issues with software on the websites they are most likely to perform research by (i.e., Wikipedia) is imminently helpful. Feel free to edit my remarks to make them more constructive by your own judgement, but I would humbly request that the spirit of warning potential users of this software remains. Its affront is particularly egregious in that it was a previously useful and clean utility, now sullied by monetized ad-ware that is impossible to avoid.

I would hope its original creator, who is highlighted in the Wikipedia article, would have personal investment in this. After all, his name is attached to a very useful utility that is now abhorred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.127.12 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. Before I could help you include the information, which I would be glad to do, I would have to see a report of it in a reliable source so I and others could verify the accuracy of the included facts. Are you aware of any published reports to support the assertions made?—John Cline (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what would qualify as a "reliable source" in this context as books and academic papers are not in the habit of discussing small freeware utilities. Google turns up several searches of users having similar problems:
Would any of these qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.127.12 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the jamesfriesen.net reference can be used to support the content you are editing. You will still need to ensure that you use a neutral voice and do not overload the article with criticism. The article is meant to be a summary. Good luck and feel free to inquire further on this matter if you have other questions.—John Cline (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk page

[edit]

A thank you is due, so "Thanks for that clean-up, John!
Iechyd da! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. What do you suppose happened to the closing parenthesis in your signature? It would be a bug I've not seen before. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. I copy 'n' pasted my message to you that I had posted on my Talk and the little devil got away.
Initially, I had believed that you had left a *smile* template there. On closer examination I discovered that the OP had failed to substitute. Of course, I have since corrected that myself. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for spotting and sorting the vandalism to my user page. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.—John Cline (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

[edit]

Comment regarding reversion

[edit]

Hi John - I hope I'm contacting you in the correct manner (this is the first time that I've edited Wikipedia). I'm not certain why updating the Cyclic Defrost editor details is considered a nonconstructive edit? Alexandra Savvides and Shaun Prescott are no longer involved with the magazine, and their details were in turn updated from those of previous editors before them. My only interest here is to make sure that the wiki entry reflects our current personnel and details accurately.

Thanks,

Chris Downton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.212.81 (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to ask these things of me. I agree that classifying your edit as nonconstructive is a mis-characterization. Looking closer shows the error to be mine. I should have requested a citation for verification and apologize for choosing the harsher option. I have removed the warning from your talk page. Please, when you reinsert the content, provide a citation inline that verifies the current staff. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John - I made the new edits to the current editor details, but the Cyclic Defrost entry seems to have reverted them to Alexandra Savvides & Shaun Prescott again. Any idea why? I thought I had entered the correction citations this time?
Thanks,
Chris Downton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.212.81 (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were reverted by a Bot (an automated program) that reverts the addition of erroneous links. The link to facebook which you included, {{facebook page|https://www.facebook.com/cyclicdefrost/}}, was broken by the template, {{ }}, for some reason, (unknown to me), linking to an error message. The Bot's action exceeded its perfunctory purpose, reverting all of your edits instead of only the ones which included the broken link. I reverted the Bot, partially restoring your edits, omitting only the template link. I removed the facebook URL from the template; linking their page in the external links section; fulfilling the intent of your edit. When I have more time, I will look at the template to see why it broke your link, but for now, this appears to be what happened. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jinkinson

[edit]

Hello John. I just noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jinkinson as "strong consensus for NOTNOW". I can see why you closed it the way you did, but I think that the link to NOTNOW may be a little misleading, as per the advice in Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW. I think your advice on Jinkinson's talk page was spot on, though. It's a little late, but would you be willing to change the mention to NOTNOW in your close to avoid any confusion? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll correct it as you described; being better. Thank you for pointing this out for me; I should have done better research! Cheers—John Cline (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Also, seeing as I mentioned you in the nomination, I should probably also inform you about my requested move of Wikipedia:Not now to Wikipedia:Adminship is not for beginners. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 71.19.182.114

[edit]

Great work protecting criminals ripping people off John.

http://neer-do-well-hall-of-infamey.blogspot.ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work censoring Kleargear.com material John. How many people are getting ripped off right now because of a lifeless retard? Pathetic. Truly. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you had come here seeking answers, I'd gladly had replied with reasons for the reversion. Because you instead came to rant; spewing false characterizations and erroneous counsel, I'll simply say that you are mistaken. And that I practically guarantee your edits will not withstand scrutiny! They are biased commentary; violateing several core policies which govern the neutral voice expected of an encyclopedic tone, and the verification requirements necessary to substantiate content inclusion. It appears that you are convinced of better ways; following them blindly, unto your own detriment. Dismayed by your lacking reason, I instead, bid thee adieu.—John Cline (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 67.193.135.8

[edit]

I believe you did make a mistake, Ostrich Leather is not attractive, it is full of ugly holes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.135.8 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not classify it as "ugly" or "beautiful" (the terms of an active edit war), but instead as an aesthetic value; being neutral either way.

The credibility of an encyclopedia is diminished when presenting extrapolations/conclusions of facts, yet bolstered presenting facts alone; allowing the reader/researcher to reach an informed decision of them. We call this a neutral voice; requiring its use. Because I am here to improve this encyclopedia, I embrace its fine counsel, and follow the required standards of its best practice. How is this perceived a mistake?—John Cline (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration clarification request closed

[edit]

Hi John, this is a courtesy message to inform you that the clarification request you submitted regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zboralski

[edit]

Hello Dear John,

thank you, for your friendly message. My contribution on AaronSw's talk page appears so, after I have been wiped from Polish Wikipedia and now this same happens here.... Even my biological family in Poland rejected me out as kind of "punishment", because I am gay and atheist: after my father passed away on 10th March 2013, they didn't informed me about his death! So I was not attending on funeral of my own father. So, that why this my "sad" emotions regarding death. But it make me realy not sad: this make me angry, how stupid and vile peole and own family are (compare the case Bridegroom_(film) and story of Shane Bitney Crone and Thomas Lee Bridegroom). So vile and cruel family, like Thomas Lee Bridegroom's family in USA - is my family in Poland. That why I am living in United Kingdom as British citizen and not in Poland as Polish citizen. And now Polish homophobs try to wipe me up from English Wikipedia, after they did it from Polish Wikipedia - after 7 years my presence there... This situation make me angry, impatient and hopeless, that stupid people only for to support own sick ideologies - violent and hurt other people, even own family members! Zboralski (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be insincere if I said I understand how you feel; I do not. I can imagine however, that the things you describe are very stressful. The important thing, I believe, is managing that stress; so it doesn't rob you of liberty, health, and life—after all, you can only control your own actions. So worry less about other people's hangups, and problems; and look out more for yourself. This is my advice.—John Cline (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

[edit]

Please comment on an RfC about Living members of deposed royal families and the titles attributed to them on WP

[edit]

Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"[3]Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Backlog Drive

[edit]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

[edit]

Hello, John Cline:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Many thanks for removing vandalism from my user page - Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome; and apparently, a connoisseur of fine libation as well! Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Due to no consensus on a previous discussion re: article naming, there is a second discussion open about moving Australia national association football team to Australia men's national association football team. We are seeking outside input and saw your name listed on the Feedback request service. Contributions to the discussions are much appreciated. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

[edit]

Edit war

[edit]

I didn't start this war. That IP did. He doesn't know anything about proper grammar or how to write. I've already had two other users take my side on this issue. Could you please not call it vandalism? It's not like I'm inserting hate speech or profanity into the article. Thanks! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that you can find two competent editors who would "take your side" in this matter. Clearly you have misinterpreted something. You need to learn the appropriate steps to take when an editor pushes a content dispute beyond WP:3RR, and taking it to a war greater than 25RR is ridiculous. Both of you are mocking our editing policy and I will be glad to see it stop; even if, as I suspect, you both are blocked for your associated role in the debacle. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFA?

[edit]

Btw, I was perhaps a bit subtle on AN, but I went over your recent contributions and on first impression, you do seem like a good candidate for adminship. Is this something you' be interested in trying for? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I first want to thank you for this encouraging message! Its prose forms a tone of appreciation; which I find tremendously therapeutic. If stress can kill a man, (I believe it can), its antithesis could also be true (I believe it is); and kind, encouraging words, forming prose of appreciation, with expressions of valuable self worth, could in fact be the antipathy of death itself—increasing one's days by its consequence. I am certain, by faith, that the sum of my days, when retiring my breath of life, will contain at least one that wouldn't have been; except for the power of your gift of kindness. I am endeared to you for this, and shall endeavor to live my extra day both fully, and well.

To answer your question, yes, adminship is something that interests me, and has interested me. I am certain that I would not bring discredit upon the corps, believing instead that I would exceed the minimum benefaction of a net positive, while striving to become an asset of capable means. I love Wikipedia; unapologetically, and am proud of my association with her. I did imagine adminship as an effective means for serving Wikipedia, and offered myself willing, (four times); finding a considerable portion of the community had interpreted my editing manner with disdain.

The myth of my Wikipedia incompetence and admin incompatibility has become self perpetuating, cresting to a formidable summit which I concede to be insurmountable. My username is actually given in widely disseminated, Wikipedia instruction guidelines for RfA, as a synonym for an "embarrassing failure"; worthy of suppression if one with empathy were to imagine the pain, I came to know, when seeing that summary of my value. Extrapolate the weight of enduring this ubiquitous misnomer, to more fully understand the value I place on an appreciative assessment, and why I use what appears like metaphoric hyperbole to describe its importance. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(watching, - and after reading again seeing that I missed the question but answered a different one, with the arbcom election on my mind and thinking that you would be a good candidate, next year perhaps:) John, I thank you for the first paragraph and the edit summary: "glimps of my soul" is not mentioned here frequently, even AGF is becoming a rare expression, while I continue to believe in good faith. You don't have to be an admin to be an arb, actually non-admins might add to the balance of a committee. - I have my difficulties with the term "net positive" because many times I see simply "measure for measure" and judgement where it appears, so I couldn't simply push the "thank you button" for your message, but felt encouraged to reveal a glimpse of my soul ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nelson Mandela was not Batman

[edit]

I noticed you have taken it upon yourself to look into the case of this user and doublecheck the SPI-investigation. I would recommend you look at this AFD, where a number of IPs from Singapore has been very busy (one even edited the 2013 Little India riots article which was also mentioned as being a subject of interest of User:Nelson Mandela was not Batman). The race related trolling issues connected to the Henry Earl article is just in line with the problematic behaviour that Bonkers the Clown (and User:Nelson Mandela was not Batman) was understandably accused of. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken things upon myself in this matter. I offered to seek wp:3o confirmation; and stated that I strongly suspect the wp:3o will concur with DoRD. Anyway, it is not my biggest priority, and I am tired at the moment; just returning home from a long day at the office.—John Cline (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

[edit]

December 2013

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I wanted to let you know that I undid your edit because it was not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.85.3 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Audrey Totter 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:
  • NARA web page: NARA. Note: Enumeration Districts 819-839 are on roll 323 (Chicago City)</ref>) was an American actress and [[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] contract star.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Walker

[edit]

Hi Mr. John Cline. Man, thanks for getting on Herschel Walker's Wiki page and cleaning it up. I have done some work on his page adding to his college football story. I saw that someone was saying that Herschel's page needs "a lot of work" but they didn't comment any on Herschel's talk page...? It just takes me by surprise when I have read sooo many Wikipedia articles that need such a bad clean-up job (all the bad grammar, terrible journalism, etc.) that it's depressing. And people then want to get on Herschel's page and shoot it down - when the authors are doing everything in our own power to create such a well written document. Like I've said, I have seen so many poorly written articles - and I used to devote a lot of time to cleaning them up to build up Wikipedia, but that would take a lot of time for me to do so. It's just to the point where people are sweating over the small stuff when they need to see the bigger picture and deal with the "other" articles that are loaded up with error - and complain about them.(I've seen a bunch of them; I really have) It makes Wikipedia look bad when I see the poor work that is placed on its website, and then someone wants to take a shot at written material that has been crafted together with lots of hours and research - long hours - over time. Again, thanks for coming in and cleaning up the vandalism. God bless you. Rod Hayes (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such an appreciative, and kind message. I am particularly fond of the salutation; delighted with your comprise—evident by its inclusion. I am reminded of Jesus Christ's fine counsel, where he said: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God"—believing you will see fulfillment of this truth; clearly applicable.—John Cline (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crimbo

[edit]

Dear John - Thank you for your sweet greeting - and what a lovely surprise it was. You really made my day there. I hope you too have a cool yule and that 2014 turns out to be all that you wish. But please don't do any prayer stuff for or about me (let's just say that deities and I are not on speaking terms....): instead, please 'donate' an act of kindness to someone on my behalf. I know you'd do that wonderfully. All the best. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: restoring old rights

[edit]

I think it is standard, but not regardless of the circumstances. It depends whether the user is intending to retire, is resigning under a cloud, etc. If he wants them back and he had them before, he can always request them at the appropriate place. And while I can't comment on this specific case, he did seem to resign under a cloud and will therefore most likely have to go through RFA to get the sysop bit back. Andrevan@ 03:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP comment

[edit]

I don't want to be rude, but you kinda did, cause it was true on The Expendables 3 page, with a source, [4]

76.188.116.60 (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That was my mistake. I restored your edit.—John Cline (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duck Dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican (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) 08:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration with Axis Powers

[edit]

Pls do not delete information so fast and recklessly. I was about to add references for each addition, only to discover that they had been deleted by you completely. Also I do not see anything contentious, maybe you could advise?114.79.55.84 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added one more section regarding Portuguese Timor. Hopefully this one will not be deleted in the same fashion. There were so many countries absent note from that article (Czech, Montenegro, Austria, Monaco, Luxembouge, Macedonia, British Malaya, Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, British Hong Kong, Dutch New Guinea etc.) anyway.114.79.55.84 (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I try in earnest not to be reckless. If I appear reckless in spite of my efforts; I guess I need to try harder. I will gladly look closer; seeing if I can be helpful, but I am walking out the door this very moment. In an hour or so, when I return, I will do this. For now I will close; wishing you the best. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked into things closer and frankly, I made a mistake reverting your edit. In reviewing your most recent edit, I don't see anything problematic at all, and do not anticipate you will have any problems rising from it. I did notice that you included an edit summary with your changes and want you to know that this is a good habit; including an edit summary will always better serve your endeavors. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will proceed with more edits.114.79.50.199 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Cline/(09-13-2013)–(12-31-2013)&oldid=1168302218"