This is a Wikipedia user page. If you were looking for the football player named John Reaves, you want this article: John Reaves. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Reaves/Archive4.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Created: 15:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Updated: 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've taken on the task of trying to cleanup after 68.80.30.39 ( talk · contribs). The user also has a history of removing cited info from anything related to the band Living Colour and has vandalised the Jimi Hendrix article several times. I've reported him to AiV many times. He's been given short blocks but, because his edits aren't "simple vandalism" he is usually allowed to fly free. I see he's targeted his usual haunts this evening. I can't be bothered rv'ing his "Living Colour" edits tonight. After 20000 edits I know that tomorrow is another day. I am going to circumvent AiV and ANI and go straight to an admin friend to request an intervention. If you have time try to keep an eye on the IP and see that his damage is minimal. Cheers and take care! Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Many admins work really hard to follow WP:AGF to the point where they are a little too polite. Reporting a vandal can be frustrating if the admin who's "on duty" happens to be feeling cheery. I know a few admins who aren't afraid the swing the ban-hammer. I don't like going behind "procedure" by avoiding AiV and ANI to speak to them directly(but occasionally I still do). This particular IP can sometimes go 2-3 days between attacks. I have been patient enough to just wait a bit...then go behind him and rv his junk. He may lurk for a while. But I can always rv the Living Colour articles in the morning. Eventually they all get bored and move on. Hopefully this one will to. Cheers! Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the IP just got a 1 week vacation for being naughty. Time to have a coffee! Cheers! Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 14:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't we leave each other alone and go on our merry ways? -- TommyOliver 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

John, a word of advice—stop reverting at User talk:TommyOliver. The warning isn't helping anything since you two were in a disagreement with eachother, it's just making a bad situation worse. I'm sure Tommy has got the message. BigNate37 _(T) 06:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with the above by BigNate37) This is in reply to your report on WP:AIV. I see no evidence (such as diffs) for anything warranting a block on TommyOliver. Please use the dispute resolution procedure to settle any issues you two might have. Be advised that there is no consensus about whether one is obliged to keep warnings on their user talk page, so edit-warring about this on the talk page of TommyOliver is pointless and probably disruptive. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i got your message. Then, u've got to help me. People are questioning me about that matter. I'm a total Harry Potter fan like a lot of people out there. In Malaysia, there are lots of harry Potter readers and u've got clear their question on this matter. What do u think of this one? Edit it if u want but please explain. -Dudley does not know anything Harry's life and does not care about either either. In the fifth book, before Dudley and Harry are attacked by Dementors, he tells Harry that he knows Harry has been having a lot of nightmares and he keeps saying the name Cedric. The nightmares are, of course, because Harry witnessed Cedric's murder earlier. Dudley purposely asks Harry is Cedric his boyfriend. Although Harry does not answer him, it definitely not true because Harry and Cedric were only friends and Harry has feelings for Cho at that time.- Thank u.

Ooo. Ok. I'm sorry. Thanks for explaining to me. Now i know. I'll be more alert next time. Thank u. Vimalesvaren 08:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How do I leave the apprpriate licensing information to add a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommypowell ( talk • contribs)

John,

Please be careful regarding the DoB. I agree it should not be in the article, however, it might be better for us to move that debate to the talk page. Regards, Navou ^banter 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this article. piper108 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Redeleted. Please do not create it again. Proto:: ► 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Wait, scratch that. It's supposedly its nickname. Proto:: ►

Hi John, I'm labrt2004 and I would like to help out with the Harry Potter portal. I'd like to suggest moving the news section to the top of the page, it seems to make more sense to have something entitled "news" to be in a more prominent location. What do you think? Labrt2004 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture of Al u removed was, as i recall, a reasonably current picture, not unlike the one on his book. Just cause he is dead doesn't mean his picture has to go away. So unless u can give me some more justification, I'd like to revert. Tom94022 06:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
I noticed you redirected Mårten Trotzigs gränd to Marten Trotzigs grand, and I guess you were correct in doing so. However, I compared WP:NAME to (the now archived) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish), and I'm still slightly confused by the contradictory guidelines. There are quite a number of Swedish-related stubs around, and very few of them containing 'åäö' seem to have been redirected. As my intention is to write much more about Stockholm, I'm wondering if creating redirects from titles without åäö isn't a better alternative.
Hope you can guide me on this one / Mats Halldin ( talk) 14:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm looking forward to redirecting a number of articles, then.

<meta> These redirects will produce some comical results; like 'Kåkbrinken' ("The [Ramshackle] House Slope") -> 'Kakbrinken' ("The Cookie Slope"), and 'Gåsgränd' ("Goose Alley") -> 'Gasgrand' ("Gas Alley"), but I guess we will have to live with it (hoping nothing kinky pops up).</meta>

/ Mats Halldin ( talk) 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

whyyyyy? im just a kid haveing fun. its not like its bad. be nice she is dieing from cancer. you made her cry. no joke. shame on you. who are you anyways?

HAHHAAHAH. im bored. teach me how to do this. i dont even know how to read messages im boreddd in english class. are you a guy? because guys names are usually john., if your a girl thats freekin gayy :) bye.

Well little kids bored in school shouldn't be messing around on wikipedia, especially if they can't spell. Kerusso 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I will say I agree with you 110% in this regards. Seems to be a self promoting bio, and has zero notablity or wiki-worthiness. Kerusso 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm hoping you can take a look at [Harry Potter fan fiction] and weigh in on the discussion on what should be done with it. Your opinion would be much appreciated! Thanks, Labrt2004 12:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How can one adopt an Irish identity and suddenly be called Irish? 86.17.247.135 02:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I did not experiment with the page as you stated on my IP talk page, I deliberately deleted a statement which did not make sense. I do not see how one can be called Irish simply by "adopting an Irish identity" rather than actually being ethnically Irish, born in Ireland or becoming a citizen of Eire. It's an absurd statement: kindly explain why it should remain. 86.17.247.135 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What an arrogant, condescending response you left on my talk page (but selectively deleted from this page when I added this exchange). Learn some manners. "I don't need to explain anything" - so you just revert at will if you don't like something, regardless of validity? Your inability to justify "why" doesn't warrant the revert and you are as obliged to give reasons as I am. 86.17.247.135 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship yes (and that is stated separately so you cannot use that as justification for your revert when it is already there and left unmolested by my edit). But not "identity": it makes no sense and I asked you to explain that point, not repeat the statement in the article. Are you saying that if one effects an Irish personality one all of a sudden becomes Irish? That's simply ridiculous. I can speak/dress/walk however I want, I'll still be British until I move to Ireland and obtain an Irish passport. Nationality does not change by behaviour. 86.17.247.135 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, my edit was based on a reasonable point of contention (please read the page's discussion before reverting and accusing someone of vandalism). Vandalism means "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and not "something with which I personally disagree but refuse to justify to another user". Bad show, editor. Good day to you. 86.17.247.135 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather foolish to call me a liar on my talk page when the facts that support my complaint are recorded for all to see on the history page of the article in question ("rvv"). Page changed to reflect your point about residency which is not covered by the vague statement about "identity", despite your attemps to justify the revert. 86.17.247.135 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You've reverted a change which reflects your own interpretation of a vague statement. Please explain why. 86.17.247.135 03:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Shawn Hornbeck. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Navou ^banter 05:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Friend, You may remove the warning. For this I have no objection: Removing a warning tells me that it was understood. Additionally, please take a moment to consider moving that debate to the talk page, as another user Tommypowell ( talk · contribs) has just been blocked for doing the same thing regarding the DoB. Dispute resolution seems appropiate here. I apoligize if I caused you anger, or if I offended. However, constant reverts, even if I agree with it, might appear disruptive. Regards, Navou ^banter 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A discussion is underway at DoB inclusion/exclusion Navou ^banter 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no restriction on linking to copyright images on the sites of who owns that copyright image. In this case Foxnews owns the image so linking to it is fine. Wjhonson 08:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To back up my uncited assertion, look here. We can link to copyrighted material without permission. What we should not do, is link to material which appears to be in violation of someone else's copyright. Wjhonson 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment, if I may...factual questions should be referred to WP:RD, and I wouldn't include commercial links in my answer, only the website's page on Wikipedia at best. Cheers. Xiner ( talk, email) 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i'd just like to say something about the changes made to Heart of Midlothian. it was for the benefit of Wikipedia, because Mindaugas Baguzis was only at Hearts on trial, and he has NOT been signed by the club. please check the Hearts website because I know I am right! thakyoy

Thanks for that! (I hate to think of what would happen if someone refactored someone's comments to mean something completely different ... =) Yuser31415 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, please can you show me where the discussion of the disputed entry in the above article resulted in agreement for your recent reversion. You commented in the amendment "rv per discussion" but there is no evidence of a consensus resolution on the article talk page which supports your change as you infer in that statement, neither is there anything in support of your edit on your own talk page or the incident page which I've managed to track down - as far as I can tell at least. Indeed, the investigation into your disagreement with another user led to an independent arbiter stating "In all truth, the anon has a pretty good point...". Therefore the closest thing to support for either view that I can find is in support of the other user's edit, which you reverted. Thanks. 62.25.106.209 12:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• You have reverted back again, citing "correct" wording (correct according to whom exactly? - it is a subjective statement and not one of incontravertable fact, such as 2+2=4). (In addition you went back on your own compromise which to be honest is a little worrying.) An article's history is insufficient to justify the status quo - just because it was that way before it doesn't mean it is correct: it is possible for a new view to be introduced, otherwise it kind of defeats the whole point of Wikipedia does it not? The argument between you and the other user was not resolved anywhere and I see of no support from other quarters (only support for a blocking) but an independent commentator did offer some support for the new proposed wording. As I understand the rules, you should not automatically delete text that cannot be proved to be wrong, but you must show willingness to negotiate a wording or defend your position. I'd be grateful therefore for an actual argument in favour and in defence of the wording you are reverting, rather than a loose claim in relation to history and an instant revert. Thank you. 62.25.106.209 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (PS I have two servers for the machine I am using, so two IP address as you can see. I have no control over this.)

I deleted the parenthetical sentence at end because my post, when previewed, showed my other IP (beginning 195) but when saved showed my one as before so the comment made no sense!! 62.25.106.209 15:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please modify your tone on my page and instead of making unsubstantiated and malicious insinuations try arguing the specifics of a point. When I see something with which I do not agree, I check the recent discussions and history before making an amendment. That is what the resources are there for and that is how they are to be used. You seem to either not know that, or do not like it (I assume the latter). In this case it is perfectly clear to me what happened recently and I find myself in support of the recent edit by the other IP (rather than coming up with one of my own). You seem to have a very rude, distrusting and boorish attitude with regards to other users, Mr Reaves, which I find rather distasteful. I shall direct you to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and expect you to read them. And if you had to "correct" a "mistake" you should not have led others (including the editor who ruled on the argument) to believe you were prepared to "compromise" then came back to change it to your preferred form - it gives the impression of underhand tactics and downright dishonesty. And yes I have specified an argument despite your claim: I have referenced the very specific one of several days ago (please read a post properly before responding). I clearly asked you why you claimed in a way that a decision/discussion of the point supported your position, which is simply not true. 62.25.106.209 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi noted your tag for speedy deletion of the article on Tin Pot Operation. Additional material has been added to the article to support the inclusion. More material will be added soon.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.76.203.84 ( talk) 12:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

81.244.234.127 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)== Daniel Radcliffe page ==

I recently visited the page dedicated to Daniel Radcliffe. In one particular section, i noticed that the author wrote "Daniel is gay" which I know hasn't been confirmed yet. While attempting to correct what i first thought to be a mistake- there are, in fact, rumors about Daniel Radcliffe being gay -, but to my great astonishment, i discovered that, in the etiding mode, that sentence did not appear. I thought of a bug, And so I cut the section of the article that was concerned, saved my changes and then re-pasted the article in its original position. Afterwards, the sentence about Daniel Radcliffe being gay was gone. I am not familiar enough with this website to undersand how this could happen. However, i would appreciate it if someone could explain this, so i know what to do if i ever face a similar situation again. 81.244.234.127 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend that you just 'happened' to stumble across this article. Stop spying on my edits, please. Michaelsanders 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

/ɹ/'s in British English do not occur at syllable endings. Also, there are no /ɹː/'s at all in English! I reverted your edit once again, since I think (and I read it somewhere) that HP's articles should be written in British English. (Confer: furnish /ˈfɜːnɪʃ/, durable /ˈdjʊə.ɹə.bəl/, tour /tʊə/, turbine /ˈtɜːbaɪn/, turning /ˈtɜːnɪŋ/, etc — 190.16.253.125 03:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"You could avoid this "two IP" issue by creating an account because, as of know, you don't have a very respectable history."

If you did a bit of research (not your forte as I've seen) before criticising you will find that my two IP address are assigned to one employer - where several thousand people happen to work. Quite possible, don't you think, that there is more than one person here who visits Wikipedia? I see your history (all yours) isn't that impressive either: while you seem to lord it over mostly anons - easy targets - you are often slapped down yourself by established editors, usually for knee-jerk responses and over-reactions in reverting edits without justification and in contravention of Wiki rules - and reporting for infringements and citing rules you do not yourself live by fully. The words "pot" and "kettle" do spring to mind....but plain old "hypocrite" will do fine. Perhaps you should close your account? -- 62.25.106.209 11:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe s/he is referring to our little disagreement - or, alternately, your original spate of vandalism when you first joined (before you reformed and started throwing stones). Michaelsanders 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that one instance of posting nonsense 3 years ago, that's probably it. You should refrain from using words in which clearly have no conception of the definition(i.e. "spate"). Good thing you you were able to take time out of what you were doing to interfer where you have no business. Why don't you just go back to history articles (where you're apparently boardering on amicable) and "sod off" for a while. And while your at it, you can stop this smear campaign you seem to have going against me (e.g. your single purpose and out of context retention of our arguments). John Reaves (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those sporadic outbreaks of vandalism you made at the beginning of your career in late 2005/early 2006 (gems such as "Pill pop", "Auf wiedersehn Herr Mistoffelees" and "ANDREW ARDIRE RAPES JEW BABIES") that got you blocked, that probably is it. "Be a man" and tell the truth for once (unless you engaged in vandalism before the cited instances, perhaps?). Not to mention the fact that, during our acquaintance, you have sockpuppeted, broken the rules you castigate others for breaking, and brought civility levels below rock-bottom with your unpleasant attitude. And it's nice to see that attitude again: you apparently have every right to barge into any article or conversation that I have, but I can't intervene in an issue which is, yet again, showing you to have as little grasp of wikipedia policy as those you blame, and to have a fairly weird streak of stubbornness (I mean, of all the things to get into a dispute over, the obviously unencyclopaedic 'choose to be Irish' is a pretty weird one. Almost as weird as getting yourself blocked because you insist that a redirect needs to be categorised). Reaves, take your paranoia and your delusions elsewhere. I have no time for whining fools who stalk me and then complain when I turn an eye to their contributions. Nor do I have any time for those who turn this encyclopaedia into one grudge match after the other. Calm down, stop being so rude and focus on the purpose of wikipedia - to write articles. Or, to use your oh-so-eloquent term, you can "sod off" and hurl abuse in the streets. I doubt anyone would miss you: least of all those IPs whom you criticise, in defiance of personal history, in order to fill your days. Michaelsanders 19:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Frankly, I don't believe you. You have already confessed to vandalism, your claim that you didn't even know about some of it is laughable, and you seem to trade on people not being aware of your previous conduct, otherwise you wouldn't continually rein them in for being violating rules which you yourself freely violate.

2) In our first dispute, over the Weasley family, you used an IP on several occasions to give the impression that you had support.

3) I think you will find that you have been far more uncivil than I have ever been. Look at today - I point out what someone is trying to say, and you bite my head off. Nothing else needs to be said there, your conduct with me, with the IP you were arguing with, and towards others speaks volumes.

4) I call spying on the contributions of others without due provocation stalking. I call barging into conversations which you are not part of - which touch on you in the most tangential of manners, and which say nothing other than the facts - in order to dump a cartload of your rudeness and aggression there stalking. I call repeated attempts to intimidate other users, questioning and interfering in their contributions and questions, stalking. You clearly don't like it when I intervene in your concerns, so why intervene in mine?

5) And your grasp of policy consists of one rule for you, one for everyone else. It consists of rudeness rather than usefulness. I know that I do far more for wikipedia than you. What do you do? Turn discussions into shouting matches, hurl abuse, nitpick, and blame other users for breaching the very rules you breach? A lot of good that does. "The only reason I got blocked was that you couldn't handle yourself and had to run for help like a little boy." Er, no, you have been blocked twice. Once for persistent vandalism, once because you couldn't follow the rules you insist others should follow. And 'running for help' - you are the one who repeatedly declaims these rules, you should be the last one to complain if you get dragged up by them. Take responsibility for your behaviour and crimes, will you?

I can, of course, be pretty sure that you will respond with another tirade in which you accuse me of whatever comes to mind. I look forward to it. Just remember - you're the one whose wikilife consists of telling people to behave. Somehow, I doubt editors will pay much attention if they know that you behave far worse than they. Michaelsanders 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Please don't answer. Michaelsanders 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasting your time dude. Reaves is an absolute crank: he picks on anons, dishes out the attitude then runs to teacher when it is sent back at him. He called me a vandal (wrongly), a liar (wrongly) when I defended myself against his false accusation and told me that he did not have to explain why he reverted my edits (wrong). He lectures on and on about Wiki rules yet either does not understand them himself or does not think they apply to him. When I told him in no uncertain terms (but no more uncivil than his attitude) what I though of all that he tried to get me blocked and another two editors suddenly joined in on his side (by invite I'm sure). And he comes up with the worst excuses ever...hit wrong key...others using my account...etc. 86.17.211.191 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the anon IP may be correcting what they think is an error, rather than deliberately vandalizing the articles. The pipetext that they've been removing consists of the call sign excluding the initial K (i.e KABC is sorted as [[Category:Radio stations in California|ABC]] rather than [[Category:Radio stations in California|KABC]]). It was actually done that way for a specific reason (to make radio categories easier to use since their articles all begin with the same first letter), but I think maybe the anon thinks it was just a mistake. Bearcat 07:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can roll them back, but I don't have the capability of doing them all in one move; I have to go through a list and roll back one at a time. Bearcat 07:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I also caught another piece of undetected vandalism in the process; one station's description had been changed from "radio station" to "piece of shit" shortly before 63.*'s edit. Bearcat 08:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)