Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:29, 9 June 2010

legal review

will send your message to A4M legal advisor to review --Morgananderson82 (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Contact Legal Office A4M

John, you may like to consult A4M www.worldhealth.net legal officer on your posting and involvement in editing the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/A4M or read careful page of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgananderson82 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact About A4M

please visit and read the fact of A4M www.worldhealth.net and contact us or the legal owner of A4M if you need a good collaboration in managing the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/A4M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgananderson82 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan articles

I saw that you recently had a run-in with my friend Littlebutterfly. I am glad that his racist and propagandist edits are getting more scrutiny from other editors; however I should warn you that he is extremely persistent and tangling with him led to my first and so far only 3RR block. If you have a problem with his changes, and you've reverted him twice, let me or one of the other editors know. Yunfeng (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Profit

What is your take on the Piratebay and Digg.com links that Wogglelump (talk · contribs) added to the WP:EL section? I think that these links are inappropriate in this article and will hurt its quality-improvement status in the future, and I left a comment to that effect on this user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - The Digg.com link itself is just a link to that same Piratebay link. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology text

Hi John. It looks like you're the author of the passage on Kaja Ballo's suicide on the Scientology page. Thanks for the contribution which i found very well written (except for a minor error which i corrected). Actually, I liked your text so well that I will put it on wikinews. I hope that it's okay with you. If not, don't hesitate to undo it. I will try to give you credit for it (don't know how wikinews works yet).

Regards, Pharaohmø (just haven't logged in :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.147.247 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't author the original text concerned, just checked out the source and copyedited and linked some stuff. John Nevard (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• re: - No problem. xenocidic (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hmmm

No I've never seen such a suggestion; if you look at the old wikipedia bio up on the internet archive.org (e.g. type "http://en.wikipedia.org/Daniel_Brandt" in here, and pick, say, the August 2006 version), it contains sources on him going as far back as his college days, although their pretty marginal sometimes, so your ponderance seems doubtful. Besides, why would someone with the middle name "Leslie" change their last name? -- Kendrick7 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Criticism of Google

Are you sure that reference doesn't substantiate the claim it's attached to? John Nevard (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. My bad, I was on a different train of thought. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mayo clinic ref

My pleasure.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf.

Also, this is repeated 2x in the article after the Tor edits: "Correlational data

Substantiated cases of child sexual abuse in the US declined dramatically in number between 1992 and (at least) 1998.. A substantial decline also appears to have occurred in Australia. The United Kingdom Children's charity NCH have stated that demand for child pornography on the Internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, however the Office for National Statistics's 2007 report on Child Protection Registers shows a decrease of approximately 27% in the number of sexually abused children between 2003 and 2007." (The second time it's repeated it includes the Finkelhor study.) I think East meant to protect the page, though--I'm not sure why that didn't show up/will let him know.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That article in particular has gone through so many changes lately I dunno how anyone keeps track of it. :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Porn Star
		In regonition of your fine work watching over the CP article- PetraSchelm (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your report at WP:COIN about Naked short selling

Hello John. You complained about Patrick Byrne's editing at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Naked short selling. I see that he's been working on a possible revision of the Naked short selling article in his user space, but it has no edits since April 6. He's also not edited the main article since May 4. Is there any further action you would like us to take? If not, the report may be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

deserves an article

...thought you might like to know, he's now got one. WilliamH (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacobson v. United States

I reverted your edit to that article not only because, as I said in the edit summary, I don't see how that's directly relevant, but also because of what Gabriel Chin, the Arizona law professor whose paper on the case I relied on heavily when researching and writing the article, says in his footnote that I cited as such (I didn't read the actual Stanley article since it's not online anywhere):

The Stanley article is a well-researched and scholarly argument for the idea that the problem of child pornography had been greatly exaggerated, and that the commercial market had long since dried up. Unfortunately, the credibility of that article has been profoundly impeached by an undisclosed conflict of interest: Mr. Stanley was himself deeply involved with sexual images of children, and actual children, giving rise to numerous scrapes with the law, including some convictions. See Stanley v United States, 932 F Supp 418 (SDNY 1996); Robert Stacy McCain, Porn Lawyer Arrested in Brazil, Charged with Child Exploitation, Wash Times, July 24, 2002.

Other people relied on it at the time. I did add some of this to the article on Stanley. Since that section of the article is relevant to a particular time period in U.S. government prosecution of child pornography, I considered that cite to be clean, as indeed Chin notes it was "well-researched and scholarly". And anyone verifying the source would find the same footnote. Certainly the rise of the Internet changed greatly the circumstances surrounding the creation of child porn, and I doubt that statement is operative anymore. I did, after considering your edit and the talk page section, reword "producer" to "marketer" regarding the US government and childporn.

If you think we should have something in the article regarding Stanley's subsequent history suggesting a conflict of interest (as Chin seems to have decided his paper should), I am amenable to putting it in the footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Shareaza

Ah. Thanks for noting that John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinh1000 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Byrne

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I haven't been doing much lately on Misplaced Pages and hadn't noticed it either, or if I noticed it I didn't read it too closely. I've responded on Talk:Patrick Byrne. I am still not firmly decided on the issue but my feeling is that since he does not seem to disagree with a full discussion of the investigation, as you want, then so be it. I don't want to be holier than the Pope.--Stetsonharry (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peter Yarrow.

Please read this then perhaps explain why you think your link should be in the article. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

re your comment to User talk:Markburger83

I would draw your attention to the fact that the above editor has not contributed to Misplaced Pages since 29 June - when they last edited Usana (perhaps they were upset at only getting half a barnstar?). Cheers LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Must we have two infoboxes for Palin? I see her name in big bold letters twice instead of once in the infobox(es).Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected your userpage

John, I have semi-protected your userpage as you are being hit by recurrent AOL IPs vandalising it. It's indefinite for now, another admin or I would be happy to fine-tune it or lift the semi-protection at any point on your request. Risker (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Less

Heh, "less bad" (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a very positive person. John Nevard (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Renault edit clash

John, can you explain just exactly what you think is factually incorrect in my recent edit of the Renault page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogneur de grenouille (talk • contribs) 12:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallow in the detail

Basing your comments just on the article is a bit disingenuous John, you should read the entire Judgement, as it clearly sets out the lengths to which Renault and its employees were prepared to go in order to pursue the case and contains some very unflattering remarks by the Judge about the witnesses Renault put forward. It also confirms all the allegations that Renault employees initiated the whole scam and then, when found out, tried to cover their tracks. It may not make nice reading, but it's what the Court saw, not anyone else. cogneur de grenouille (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You could have picked your name better

John you said:

"There's something about coming onto Misplaced Pages as a 'Frog basher' that indicates you do not intend to act to improve the encyclopedia. John Nevard (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)"

Er, the correct translation of my user name is 'frog bruiser' John. In future could you please make more of an effort to uphold the Misplaced Pages quest for accuracy :-) but if you could also give me definition of 'improve' then I will do my best! cogneur de grenouille (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Peace in our time

Read your revision to the Renault text John, can't find fault with it at all! Well done! Just one question though, how come the phrase 'The company is well known for numerous revolutionary designs, security technologies, and motor racing.' is acceptable in the introductory section? Where is the authority for that? cogneur de grenouille (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche Arbcom decisions

John, you removed a source in an article which I researched and largely rewrote on Robert McFerrin. I wasn't the only researcher, but I put in most of the sources. In the digest you typed, "remove poor source, per LaRouche Arbcom decisions." I'm curious...can you tell what that source was? Also, I don't know what that means, Larouche Arbcom decisions.

Thank you.Voiceperson (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche criminal trials

It is great that you are interested in LaRouche criminal trials. However, the article is currently in FAC and the editors reviewing the article specifically requested that the lead be shortened and made more precise. We would be grateful if you would keep that in mind while editing the article. Perhaps you could think of ways to shorten the lead. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. Was looking to get a bit more specific in reaction to the account which has started up editing on LaRouche organisation articles after a long sleep. John Nevard (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sources

John, when you remove those sources, you need to either find new sources for the material, remove the material itself, or at the very least add a citation needed tag. It makes no sense to remove the source while leaving the information that is based on the source intact. Everyking (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

John, I know I'd feel a lot better if you assured me that you won't do that in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I have no intention to remove sources of negligible worth used to back up statements no more controversial than the rest of the bulk of unsourced material in an article without adding citation needed tags. John Nevard (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

overstock.com

Regarding your revert, I reverted your insertion and gave a reason. That reason is repeated on the talk page. Take this to talk, talk it through and do not revert back without a clear consensus on the talk. Or there will be consequences for you. You know the rules, you know better, don't mess around, please. Make the case for that material on the talk page.++Lar: t/c 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, and let me apologise, your second edit is balanced. Probably an edit summary would have helped it not look like reinsertion of the same thing. I've reverted myself back to how you had it after your second edit. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. The second edit is probably more balanced than the first, which was likewise more balanced than the article as it was. The news coverage has been deficient so far but at least the reference can provide content, along with the Nocera article. John Nevard (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

?

Not that I object to the message, but what entitled me to this? I don't believe I'd ever edited the template. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Noticed your interest in the topic of the creator's contributions. Figured you might have some insight on the topic. `John Nevard (talk)

Libelous comment on Talk:Sarah_Palin_email_hack

Can you explain why you made this edit? It doesn't seem libelous to me. If we omit the "there is speculation" paragraph, can we return this comment to the talk page? --beefyt (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ref: Hi

Hey John Nevard, looks good, thanks for the collaboration, though it could be expanded, i do find inconsistencies in language formats between the American and Argentinean Falcon that has to be looked upon, and to a lesser degree with the Australian Falcon, witch are all related somehow.

The Argentinean Falcon article (Spanish) also has structural deficiencies that i will work on in the future, it all seems rather confusing and un-encyclopedic, I've added a Ford Falcon disambiguation to the article in question and minor change. Ford Falcon disambiguation should be added to the Australian Falcon! Cheers – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey John, the "disambiguation" on all three clears things up!

Now i have to figure a way of straightening the Language links, witch from Ford Falcon (Argentina) if you link to the Spanish Language you go correctly to the Spanish version but if you now select English again you go to the Ford Falcon (North America) article witch is rather confusing, the fix would be to translate, at least partially, the North American Falcon and the Australian Falcon pages in Spanish.

BUT, the German page on the other hand is interesting because they include all three version equally more or less, and Germany being neutral ground, but here again, if you decide to link to English it goes to the Australian version!, though the German setup i believe is the clearest and they all should be this way but with links to the main articles!

In other words, what you think about developing a brief and "neutral" Ford Falcon article with its history and emphasizing it's roots and include the other two international versions, all of them with links to the main articles.

The Ford Falcon is truly one of the first "World Cars" and the North American Article is not emphasizing this at all!

Hope i got trough, please let me know your thoughts, lol – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I couldn't help noticing the Ford Falcon's main page summary you've created, and it sounds just right, in order to reinforce article I believe it should be accompanied by an image of the first model, witch was the same for all three markets, and took the liberty of inserting one for your review, (I've left it hidden), the only one i found in commons acceptable for this article by the way and its a great looking pict.

Next step would be doing the same in Spanish which i can take care of and thereafter the rest of the languages can be coordinated!

Cordially - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Repubblica article - Stormfront

Here's a 'down and dirty' translation of the paragraphs in question:

I asked them if Stormfront is not just another new Ku Klux Klan, a Klan of the 21st Century without pointed hoods and Arian symbols. "Yes, it is just like that", was the instant response. Along with Don Black, his son Dereck (age 19) is seated, who is the organizer of the radio (program) on the Internet of Stormfront. From the beginning of our encounter he listened quietely, but now interrupts his father: "You have not never said it, you can not say that". He gestured and tried to stop his father's speaking with his hand: " You know that you can't say it". The father remained immovable: " I never said that an American journalist, but you know that it is true".

Dereck, always wearing an Australian cowboy hat, is the new face of the white supremacy and has been elected as the director (??) of one of Republicans of the county of Palm Beach. The secretary of the party did not want this and he is opposed to this election, but the Black is giving battle: "The local leader, who is a Jew - emphasizes the father - does not want to make allow him to take this seat, but Dereck has been elected with the 60% of the ballots and the democratic rules must be respected". This smaller battle is apparently crucial for the future of the movement of the "white power": "There is no more time in order to try search to create a third party for the marginal , we must be introduced to every primary election within the Republican party so as to impose our topics in the debate, we must work in order to create a our 'special interest' group, in order to restore the traditions and the true white values".

Don and Dereck Black work daily to make their voice with that of David Duke on the Internet, but they do not love the interviews and they have accepted this interview because the newspaper is Italian: "We like your country: there is much excitement on our site for what it is coming from you, you are first who react to demonstrate that you does not have to submit to you immigrants. Also David Duke thinks like this, he spent a majority of his time in the northern Italian passes last year for skiing in the Dolomites". But to the question as to where Duke lives: "This we prefer not to say, it is a fact that the remains private".

-skip 1 paragraph, just a description of Black-

I asked quickly about the Ku klux klan, the violence and the homicides. "The Klan has great merits, it restored order in the South after the Civil War, today is attempts to rewrite history but it was a truly positive force". But what about the lynchings and the bombs? "There was violence in 1960's, but it was emphasized and used against us by the media". Isn't there anything about which you're repenting? In a fatigued manner Don Black responded: "There have been things mis-done", but added quickly: "But the processes that are celebrated today, 40 years after that, against members of the organization are done solely for political purposes". The memory of those killed in the bombing of Birmingham, the children: "One does not forget that I was only a child then, but many times I ask myself: who was behind it? Because after that bombing the government swept through all of the institutions of the South and opened the schools and universities". I asked if he was nostalgic of the racial segregation? "I don't think that it's proposible now, but I'm sure that it works in places: in the schools where it was more secure".

-last line-

Stormfront has 144,000 enrolled. "That number - he specified - was the data from last month".

Hope this helps! Skier Dude (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary

Hi John Nevard: Glad to see you're keeping an eye on my work. Saw your changes to the subject article. I cribbed the caption from the image's description, but wfy-ed a few things in it. That's where I got Papuan vs Papua ending, not sure it really is right or wrong. Further, the exact history of which of the predecessor organizations was created when, and what governmental/territorial units were the owning governments is hazy/inconsistent in the sources I was able to find so if you're able to tighten/expand/improve that area... it would be awesome! Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

True... I picked 'Paupan' over 'Papua' on the ~2000 vs 4 search results, plus this rather useful looking book that I'm afraid I won't have access to in the near future. Good luck. -- Nevard 01:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that lead. I knew of the book but not that Google Books had excerpts. Further, it led to this which, starting on page 65, has just the history I seek. Problem is that it's someone's doctoral thesis rather than an actual published work, but I can "reach through" I suppose... or at least use it to find other stuff. I really only want a para or two about this history, more would belong elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent.. I swear there used to be something in the more important sourcing policies relating to works of this kind, but as the author is now a lecturer at a major public university I don't think there would be any disputes about the quality of the sourcing. -- Nevard 04:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin thing

Hey! Thanks for wanting to revive the article. I'll put it up at User:John Nevard/Revive. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem! If there's anything else I can do to help feel free to let me know. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit

...yeah, I agree - that's probably a better way of phrasing it. Thanks, and happy holidays. MastCell  21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Christine Maggiore

I've changed your comments on the cause of death, because it isn't really supported by the source, which says only that she was treated for pneumonia. Unless I've overlooked it, it doesn't say it was Pneumocystis pneumonia (the type which killed her daughter). Nor does it say it was AIDS-related. I suspect we will never know the specific cause of death, as the coroner has decided not to perform an autopsy unless the family requests it - and I rather doubt they will. Sorry for nit-picking, but we really do need to be absolutely correct in our facts. - Nunh-huh 08:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It seems she was in the anti-vac crowd as well so probably wouldn't have been treated properly for the disease anyway, AIDS or not. Nevard (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect she avoided not only the required therapeutics, but any diagnostics that might have "revealed too much" as well. A sad case all around. -Nunh-huh 08:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for involvement

According to the history of the Iran-Iraq War article, you are a significant contributor to it. Therefore, I was wondering if you would like to get involved in a discussion I have started concerning a proposal to trim some sections, and move some text back into the article. The discussion can be found here: . Thank you very much if you do get involved. Cheers for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

...at the Eleni P-E article. In the past few days, we've had a nice-sized trickle of POV edits on AIDS denialism, such as usually happens when one of the denialist message boards has a Misplaced Pages thread. I wonder which one it was this time, or if it's just coincidence. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Creativity Movement

Hi. Could you post those facts and sources on article talk first just so there is a heads up to the involved editors there. I do not want to unprotect this and it to descend into a continuation of hostilities because neither of them have read the changes you proposed. Obviously if you can improve the sourcing to that degree their argument will be moot so if you post it on talk so its on record I'll gladly unprotect it. best. Mfield (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Creativity Movement

As User:Josh Dean Roy will remain indefinitely blocked, the edit dispute is effectively over. I have removed the protection. Mfield (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruppert

I have questioned the rationale behind the removal of Michael Ruppert. Perhaps you would care to offer your opinion? —Dixie Brown (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great :) Thank you.

Just wanted to thank you for adding to the aspartame controversy article. Thanks Unomi (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify this edit

which just came to my attention... what exactly were you hoping to accomplish with it (and with the edit summary)? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing incredibly productive. But hey, it's a more productive way to blow off steam than start an arbitration case on each and every pseudoscience enabler on Misplaced Pages- after all, about half the ArbCom'd have to recuse themselves. Nevard (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Another edit I was wondering about was this one: ... why the snarky edit summary? ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

about A4M

Hello Mr. John Nevard,

About this conflict of interest, we try to give wikipedia the best article about A4M with more reliable sources including the external links. The article you provide seems doesn't have any verification and the sources you provide aren't enough to prove what you said in article. So we try to correct it under the legal order from the A4M. Soon we will provide you with more evidence like legal agreement from our lawyer about A4M, in order to make everyone understand that we are responsible to give the actual information. I hope we could have a cooperative understanding.

thanks for your kindness and understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgananderson82 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Writing about "legal order" and "legal agreement" could be construed by some as a form of intimidation or even legal threat. Let's leave the lawyers out of this. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BMW Central Building

Hello Thank you for looking through my page on the BMW central building. Everything that is on there is original using the cited sources. Some of the text is paraphrased others are totally original but nothing should have any sort of copyright issue. The timeline and quickfacts come also from the sources but have footnotes linked to the sources. THis is my first wikipedia article and i am somewhat confused with the process. I have received a speedy deletion notice for the article and I am not sure why. I am a college student of architecture and my assignment was to create a wikipedia article and have it stay up so my goal is to keep it up there. I spent alot of time citing all of my sources and trying to make a compliant and useful article. I chose the building because i thought it was very interesting. If you could help me in any way i would really appreciate it. Is there anyway I can remove the speedy deletion tag? Thank you very much for your help.

-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anm23 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyndi Lauper/Laura Branigan templates

You're welcome for my work, but thank you for noticing it and commenting accordingly. :) Acalamari 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And a further thanks for being the kind that would give me a heads up on my talk page. 16:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

von Brunn

I had no suspicions of any insidious behavior on your part, John, and I apologize if it looked that way. However, with Holocaust denial trying to be spread throught wikipedia, I felt the need to clarify the issue. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

James Hydrick

Thanks for your help on the James Hydrick article. I have been looking and looking for a real newspaper article stating he was a sex offender. I already knew he was, but a couple of the other editors are convinced that only a newspaper article is an acceptable form of proof. One that I couldn't find. Thanks. meinsla 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Scott Watson

Thanks for adding the sources to my Scott Watson page, John. I see you have reinstated your bit about the Privy Council turning down Watson's appeal. That is not correct as your TVNZ source states. What they did was turn down an application to appeal his murder conviction. That's not the same thing. Do you agree? The case itself never went to the Privy Council, unlike David Bain's, which did, and we know the outcome there, don't we? Are you a Kiwi? I am assuming so.

I note also you chopped out my 'Red Herrings' section completely, with the comment "removed unreferenced, inconsequential opinion piece". I totally disagree with your comment. If need be I will add references, and reinstate the piece. The crux of the police case against Watson included all of these points, along with others which I had not included. Have you read the three books I listed in the bibliography? Even Goulter's book, written with police co-operation and prefaced by DI Pope himself, admits the police case was very shaky, so they had to use every trick they could to convince the jury. The documentary "Murder on the Blade?" is even more revealing.

Look forward to your comments. RogerWNZ (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Skeptic encyclopaedia

Thanks for the edits you're making to the skeptics encyclopaedia article. I've added two possible references to the talk page, but I'm afraid I don't have time to track them down. You might be interested? Sorry I'm busy and not much help right now. Cheers, Verbal chat 12:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem- unfortunately I had trouble finding those two in databases I had access to. Hope you enjoy your travels. Nevard (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and update

Thanks for your help with the broken links at User:MastCell/FDA links. I don't know whether WP:MED is on your watchlist, but I've posted a progress report there that may interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is asking for sources

I noticed that you added a mention about Dan Savage but now there is no source in references and one user seems asking it now. Uikku (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Doesn't look like they looked particularly hard. Nevard (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolf Szmuness

John Nevard, I edited Wolf Szmuness before checking the history. Since you made substantial and excellent improvements to the article, I don't want to step on your toes. Feel free to change anything I should not have. Thanks. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative HIV viewpoints

The references that you removed are improper. While you may disagree with them, they are published references regarding the information presented in the article. You cannot simply remove information that you do not agree with, particularly when that information supports the article. Please discuss such edits in talk and obtain consensus prior to deleting valid references.  Neuromancer  03:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, this article doesn't fall within the WP Medical, Scientific, or Virology categories. Robert Geraldo is an MD, and the reference to his writing is not required to be published in a scientific journal. If this article was HIV, then you would be correct. To remove his information is pointless, as it removes the reason for the debate point. This is the point of the article. If you would like to include a reference that contradicts his point of view, by all means do so, and append it it.  Neuromancer  08:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Disinformation on medical issues doesn't avoid MEDRS guidelines. The tribe has spoken. Nevard (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Failed to recognize

Doesn't that wording imply that the British were obliged to respect that limit while "did not recognize" would be a more neutral way of putting it since the matter was a disputed one at that time?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nigel Hastilow

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nigel Hastilow. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nigel Hastilow. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

New article for Amanda Knox

We have received permission to expand the redirect page into article "Amanda Knox" and other users now can edit that page. Please beware that many users have expressed an interest in limiting Misplaced Pages information about Amanda Knox, so the article has been re-nominated in a WP:AfD Article-for-Deletion debate. Although, per policy, Amanda Knox has individual notability (to allow a separate article), on previous occasions an AfD has been decided based on severe resistance to having an article exist, and an admin might delete an article which would, otherwise, have been allowed on a notable subject. You might consider some decisions on Misplaced Pages to be based on avoiding enemies, even though WP:Polices and guidelines seem to allow more freedom than occurs. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)