User talk:Johnvr4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:09, 13 March 2014

Welcome!

Hello, Johnvr4, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Entries I am working on

Please check them out and help fix, offer suggestions, improvements, help me add photos (ask me)

Operation Red Hat (see my sandbox)
Johnston Atoll
Deseret Test Center
Project 112
Project SHAD
MT Transpacific
MT Vulcanus
USNS Schuyler Otis Bland (T-AK-277)
267th Chemical Platoon
Operation Pacer IVY
Operation Pacer HO
Biological Warfare and similar Japanese involvement
Entomological warfare
Anti Crop Herbicidal Warfare
Agent orange issues on Okinawa

Learning

I'm learning Wikipedia but find myself researching templates and formatting more than the actual subject and it takes me a long time to complete anything. I need someone who is good with Wikimedia, adding photos videos, tables, the format of references etc. finding weakness in an argument and staying neutral where there is contradictory info or where the official or declassified version of events does not fit with the verifiable facts of the event or the documentation of an event. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Johnvr4 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 267th Chemical company

For "B class" have a look at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class. Check my Sandbox for an example of how I would do the article. User:Adamdaley/sandbox. Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Red Hat

Article: Operation Red Hat.

I've somewhat read the expanded article. To me, it's too much detail and I was in a headspin trying to understand it all. I've mainly taken out the extra spaces and put {{cn}} to indicate Citations Needed. If you don't feel they are needed simply take them out. It's quite a big article and I could never do one that big! Good luck with it. The main thing is at least you are understanding it. Hope others will too. Adamdaley (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I had no idea what was going on at this place or what I was getting into. I thought it was just moving chemical weapons from one site to another when I started.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the sounds of the article, even the Government and DoD doesn't even know themselves. To someone who is interested in reading the contents of the article would understand it. In future your more than welcome to ask for any further help or for me to have a look at articles. Adamdaley (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to offer your unbiased opinion on a synthesis concern in the first portion of the entry (or any concern discussed on the talk page). Thank you for the Citations needed. I am working on re-locating those sources. This is my first 'whole thing' article and it lacks the clarity I'd prefer in some (many) places. Still in progress. Thank you again.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnvr4, thank you for your long and hard efforts on Red Hat. However, despite your suspicions or direct knowledge on what may have been connected to the core subject, transfer of chem/bio weapons from Okinawa to Johnston Atoll, masses of other related info does not belong in the article; it belongs in articles such as MACVSOG or the other chemical/bio programs, or 1st Special Forces Group. Too many other subjects in the article make it unreadable. I'm perfectly happy to work sympathetically on this with you, but you *cannot* keep adding huge amounts of non-CW/BW transfer from Okinawa to Johnston material into the article - or you have to change the article's subject significantly. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake If you are trying to help, ask me what the significance is before deleting it. It was already discussed on the talk page. Please undo your changes.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of the material needs to be *very clearly evident* in the article itself. I have absolutely no intention of reverting any of my changes, because this is *not* your article. However, should you wish me to drop a copy of the full version in your userspace (see WP:USERSPACE), I can easily do that. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should note that (a) all the material in the previous versions can easily be accessed via the history tab, and (b) other people trying to help will find it easier if they don't have to wade through enormous masses of barely related material. I would probably be considered as a knowledgable expert, and I could not see myself why some of the material was in there. Happy to keep chatting... Buckshot06 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entry belongs to the community however as the primary author, it is more mine than yours or at least the work that went into it is. It was started by someone else before any of the new information was known. It was just a transfer from on place to another and this is what I began writing about. New info came out and it seems that Operation Red Hat was much more. It is controversial and requires both sides plus a bit of a history lesson that is not completely readily available in secondary sources- which I discuss and provided. It seemed like a lot of material but I included the minimum info for a proper understanding. Nuking it is not an improvement and neither are any of the changes made. The time for discussion was prior to the deletion. Not a justification after. What exactly are you knowledgeable about? If you were knowledgable about this, you would understand the relevance of the sections you deleted. I am not a wiki expert. I am a researcher and the primary docs I have obtained are are what is available. In some cases, there is a less reliable secondary source. I try to use all sources but you have to understand there are only a few or one sources for some material (it has been classified) and many sources for other material and I don't always include them all.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nature of wikipedia that related material doesn't belong all together in one article; it belongs in other articles. Now this may be controversial, but Wikipedia is not for advocacy. What you really need to do is write and publish a research paper on the subject, not paste different chunks of things into wikipedia. We also should not use primary sources only; only things backed by reliable, published secondary or tertiary sources (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCES). Primary sources unsupported by other material simply don't belong on wikipedia. Now, should you believe that there is other material that should go into the article, go through the normal procedure in such cases: open a header on the talkpage, and request an edit be made, saying what needs to go in and why. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way to dodge the issue. Your opinion that it is not closely related to the topic is based upon a lack of understanding of the topics link to Project 112, CIA, Counterinsurgency, covert missions, herbicides, or anything else. The article is not to advocate, its purpose is to state reliable sourced facts. Those facts can be cited by advocates. The Sources link each of these subjects to RED HAT. It was not my choosing to include them nor would have I chosen to if they would fit anywhere else. They are included because Operation Red HAT and project 112 information does not fit under any of those other subjects other than in trials or testing.

We should not RELY on Primary Sources for the entire article. They are but one type of source and I have supported them where it is needed. If you have a specific example, I can address it. All of this discussion is already on the archived Talk page. Can you please un-archive that discussion? It blanked the talk page and is useless.

I am open to suggestion and improvement. I'm not even done writing it. Can you just put tags in where improvement is needed and let me improve rather than delete entire sections and lock the page? One editor deleted content and after discussion, I re-wrote to address his concerns. He quit talking on the page 2 months ago and apparently came in today again with his two cents.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quit talking to you because you refuse to listen, which continues. (Hohum ^@) 20:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not closely related to the issue, but *specifically* about Operation Red Hat. Nothing else should be in the article; as you can see, it ought to be in other articles, like Chinen, Okinawa, where I've just moved material about the CIA training camp (or Project 112). Then you link it into this one. For the purposes of wikipedia, half this article is *not* WP:Reliable Sources because it's primary sources unsupported by other data. Should you wish to re-bring-up old talkpage issues, start a new threat on the talkpage; the talkpage should be archived every so often. However, what I will do is check how often the talkpage is archived and see if I can avoid it archiving every month. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just rolled back my attempts to change the archiving of the talk page; seems I don't know enough about the coding. Sorry... Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your reinsertion of material to the page Operation Red Hat. It appears that based on discussion on the talk page that there is a consensus to not include this additional material. Several editors have supported its removal (at least 3), whereas only you support it's inclusion. Because a majority of editors do not support including the material, it should not be added back to the page. Prodego ^talk 20:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no version as of 14:05, 9 June 2013. About that time however the article included everything that's in your userspace; simply remove the bits you don't want, as the userspace pages can be edited in exactly the same way as normal ones. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

John, saying "F U" to someone is completely unacceptable. Please remove the comment, and familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am offended by the accusations leveled against me and both of the offensive comments remain, no one has apologized to me and F U is open to any interpretation you want it to mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu. I'll take a look at the policy and consider it. Thank you for your concern.Johnvr4 (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance It looks like the violation of this policy is theirs. Perhaps All four of us should re-read it.Johnvr4 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, pal, playing cutsy games will not help your case. You are walking on thin ice. Remove the attack. Now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand now. Using "you" or the abbreviation U is directed at the person rather than the content and is considered a personal attack. However the F is acceptable when used according to the Policy. As in "F all the Changes and deletions made to this entry without prior discussion." Or "F the personal attacks I received." or "F being referred to as someone's Pal." It is probably not the best way to say it but acceptable. Based on the above, I will edit my comment. How about Addressing the NPA from the other two?Johnvr4 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that you misused a reference is not a personal attack. And regardless of whether another editor did or did not attack you, that doesn't give you permission to use uncivil language. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not use uncivil Language. I used an abbreviation that was considered a personal attack. You were right and I removed my comment. I See that the offense comments other editors wrote are still there. F(orget) that content. Second, to say they are going to see what YOU have cooked up is a personal attack. Saying YOU abuse sources is a personal attack. An administrator needs to understand the policy they are allegedly enforcing. Good day.Johnvr4 (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, pointing out that a source doesn't say what you're using it to cite is not a personal attack, it's simply stating a fact. If you take offense at that, perhaps you should have followed the source(s) more carefully. And yes, you did use uncivil language - it doesn't matter how much you bowdlerize it, the meaning is crystal clear. Drop the games. Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to defend the offensive comment of your pals go ahead. That is also unacceptable behavior. To want to point out my error in sourcing or comment on it is fine. It could have been sourced better. I explained that and that I am new to wiki. i asked for suggestions a long time ago. Where were any of you experts? To accuse ME of acting in bad faith, "abusing", and "Cooking up" with the use of YOU and and YOU'RE is a personal Attack.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

John, I appreciate that the discussion over Red Hat may be making you feel annoyed, but your uncivil attitude, WP:OWN attitude, and swear words are simply unacceptable for Wikipedia. I'm in a position now to give you a short warning block for incivility, and other admins may feel the same too. Cool it, will you? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the warning. Do what you have to do. I do not appreciate the tag teaming by some Administrators and the inconsistent enforcement of or ignoring of all the rules. I am upset because most of what is being done is unjustified. Some of the changes and criticisms are unfair. Others concerns are spot on and need to be changed. I would like the opportunity to do make those changes without resorting to clear cutting the submission I have made.

I do not think I own it and I think I have explained that. I appear possessive because I have been working on this a long time with very little assistance in the content. I am an independent researcher and a Subject matter expert. I appear "too close" to the subject because in researching RED HAT I located two publications Re: Agent Orange and Okinawa and gave it to those working on the subject. I have spoken to them as well as some Project 112 and Green Beret Affair participants. I do not use information from those primary sources that I have spoken to or corresponded with rather I use their info to find a secondary source of that information or an official Document. I have even spoken to the DoD's Project 112 expert Dr. Michael Kilpatrick and he cited the lack of mention on the DoD fact sheets and referred me to this very Wikipedia Article.

If you want to do some Original Research of your own, google him and call him. Ask him about Ursula Islet in The Philippines and Project SHAD too. No DoD fact sheet.

The 50 anniversary of the Red Hat deployment is approaching. I'll "cool it" and come back and restore most of it with another secondary source that no one can call Original research or synthesis. I also appreciate any improvements that you can provide avoiding the mass deletion of content. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message John. Why don't you ping me through the e-mailthisuser function on my talk page? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that feature. Let me look for how to do it. Please give me some time. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you said you wanted to talk regarding a topic ban? How could/can I help? I have to say, my unvarnished opinion is that you seem, at the very least, determined to add a whole bunch of completely unrelated info to the article, and to be honest, I do not understand why. Anyway best wishes Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion postscript

The new info discovered in 2012 is about some aspect of the umbrella Project 112, not about the disposal sub-project known as Red Hat. There was nothing new said about the latter in Japan Times. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken and so it the premise of your entire argument.

The Japan Times is citing the Letter about the 267th Chemical Platoon and OPERATION RED HAT and has a photo of the letter mentioning RED HAT

read it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:267th_Chemical_Company.pdf

and the article http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2012/12/04/community/were-we-marines-used-as-guinea-pigs-on-okinawa/Johnvr4 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper itself does not comment on that issue, but if we are to dissect that document ourselves, which is the organizational history of the company surely involved in the disposal (and suspected to have been involved in tests): "RED HAT Area, Site 2, for the receipt and storage of first increments" does indeed suggest that "RED HAT Area" referred to some CW site. But note that "Area" is not the same as "Operation"! A search in google books shows that "RED HAT Area" refers to the reception site on Johnston Atoll, not Okinawa. [1] (Closure and Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, p. xv) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although most sources I found use "Red Hat area" to designate a site on Johnston Island, according to Japan Quarterly (Volume 17, Issue 4, 1970, p. 366) "Red Hat area" also referred to a part of the Chihana Ammunition Depot, Okinawa, under the control of the 267th Chemical Company. "Red Hat area" might be a rather generic US army term for a place where chemical weapons are stored. Given the scarcity of sources, we can't be sure. Anyway, that doesn't change the meaning of Operation Red Hat, although it certainly helps explain where the name came from. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is called the Red Hat Storage Area (RHSA)-search for that and there were two of them.

You are talking about one source, the article. The primary source letter states 267th chemical platoon, YBA, YBB, YBF, PROJECT 112 in the red hat area at Chibana in the 1960s.

Also form the Men and a mission film, the red hat name was around from the early 1960s during planning for original deployment, they just kept the name and declassified it for the removal and storage op to Johnston Atoll.

The Chemical weapons movement history compilation (it's both a primary and secondary source) links YBA,YBB,YBF, to the deployment of chemicals to Okinawa which it also links to the redeployment to Johnston Atoll during Operation Red HAT! You seem completely unaware of it and it wrecks your entire argument. http://www.epa.gov/region04/foiapgs/readingroom/camp_lejeune/trianadoc21a.pdf

So from the document(s) and news article (there's also an Asia Pacific Journal article and many others.), Now what is your understanding of the differentiation between Project 112 site 2 and Red Hat site 2 within the red hat storage area?

There is at least one other English article based on the letter and on this subject that you don't seem aware of. I don't think I cited it and it is not mentioned above. You should have searched better than you did and read it before throwing out accusations.

Your statement of "Red Hat area" might be a rather generic US army term for a place where chemical weapons are stored. Given the scarcity of sources, we can't be sure." This is the highest form of synthesis.

The article was deleted for sourcing and now you admit that sources are limited

I was nominated for a ban. You even revised your understanding of the subject after you nominated and tried to ban me entirely from this subject (citing a misinformation accusation due to your own faulty understanding) and after the entry had been deleted. This new understanding is more than any other administrators have grasped or admitted to. This is an admission the you had NO idea what your were even talking about with regard to this subjects connection to 112 or that the removal was 1971 rather than 1972 prior to the go ahead for deletion and nomination of me for a ban. This is exactly what I have been trying to demonstrate to each administrator through these sources. The 267th had the Red Hat mission and Red Hat chemicals were actually Project 112 items stored in the Red hat Area.

Project 112 on Okinawa is how all of the other previously deleted topics were highly related to Operation Red Hat. The redeployment operation to Johnson was actually only one small publicized aspect of "Operation Red Hat"/Project Red Hat.

Johnvr4 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that there aren't any sources stating the conclusion from your last line: "The redeployment operation to Johnson was actually only one small publicized aspect of "Operation Red Hat"/Project Red Hat." You [re]wrote the entire article predicated on that assumption. To 99.999% of the world "Operation Red Hat" means simply the highly publicized move of the CW from Okinawa to Johnston. And a search for "Project Red Hat" in conjunction with Okinawa finds extremely few sources; and those also use it to mean the shipment from OKC to JA. If you wanted to cover the broad topic of US chemical weapons in Okinawa, including their introduction, incidents involving them, and their withdrawal, you should have written a very different article rather than try to cram everything in your vision of what Operation Red Hat might be. You might have inside information for all I know, but Wikipedia is NOT a citizen journalism website. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First it is not my assumption nor is it my vision. Red hat is linked to Project 112 and Red hat also is Linked to Agent orange. I'm confused, Are you saying the sources don't exist anywhere to show that and I am misinforming or simply that you cannot find them and have not reached that conclusion? There is a Huge difference. I am not a journalist but there are a few covering this very story. I already showed you multiple sources that say red hat was more than the redeployment to Johnston Atoll. Even the Red Hat Men and a mission Film says that. The name red hat was used 8-9 years prior to the transfer and was still in use 29 years after. You are talking about what 99.99 percent of people know about info from 1977. The YBA, YBB, YBF history compilation was not written until 1987 and was not declassified until recently. The link to Project 112 was discovered in 2012. So 99.99% of people are misinformed? What is your point here? The article can't give weight to new information recently declassified that is already in the news simply because 99.99% of people have never heard it? It sounds very much as if your position is that if I contribute information from new sources that is not already well established by popular opinion then I am a conspiracy theorist and mis-informing people. Here is another source: http://japanfocus.org/-Jon-Mitchell/3868 Johnvr4 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First you say "I already showed you multiple sources that say red hat was more than the redeployment to Johnston Atoll." and in the same breath you show us a source that says:

Operation Red Hat, the mission to transport the weapons off the island, was organized by the same man who had brought them to Okinawa two decades previously: John. J. Hayes (by then a general). It also involved the 267th Chemical Platoon, which had been renamed the 267th Chemical Company. During two separate phases in 1971, the military shipped thousands of truckloads of sarin, mustard gas, VX and skin-blistering agents from Okinawa to U.S.-administered Johnston Island in the middle of the Pacific. The consignments totaled 12,000 tons — a terrifying amount considering that many of these substances' fatal dosage is measured in milligrams. After the final shipment had left the island, Hayes assured journalists, "Every round of toxic chemical munitions stored on Okinawa has now been removed."12

The involvement of Hayes and the 267th company appears to tie the tale of Okinawa's CBW into the kind of neatly knotted circle loved by historians. However, new evidence has surfaced that Operation Red Hat was only the latest round in a long game of smoke and mirrors contrived by the Pentagon to hide the true extent of its CBW arsenal.

In 1972, one year after Operation Red Hat, marine Sgt. Carol Surzinski participated in a defense readiness class on Okinawa's Camp Kuwae, in Chatan Town.

This is why the article was deleted. You completely misrepresent what is said. (Hohum ^@) 16:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Many souces" is not the One souce you pasted. The authors sources for the article are also mentioned. Take a look at them because I used them too. The link between increments YBA, YBB, and YBF and "Operation Red Hat" is described in a DOD chemical weapon movement compilation. The same increments YBA, YBB, YBF are also mentioned in the letter relating to the 267th, 'Red Hat Storage, and Project 112. It is obvious they are talking about the same events and it is documented that Red Hat was the redeployment to Johnston in 1971 but it was other things too such as the 267th's mission, the storage area(s) at Chibana and at Johnston Atoll, the redeployment "Operation Red Hat", increments YBA,YBB,YBF and some unknown part of Project 112 as Site 2. 1972 is one year after red hat so any representation that Red Hat on Okinawa took place in 1972 (or after 1971) in inaccurate. What is it that you are saying about 1972 and a misrepresentation? 1972 was not part of Red Hat Okinawa and the article does not state it was. 1972 describes standard defensive training. The articles link to the year 1972 is chemical weapons training not to Red Hat. 1972 at Johnston Atoll was Operation Pacer IVY and Agent Orange to Johnston Atoll.

Your complaint was "The trouble is that there aren't any sources stating the conclusion from your last line: "The redeployment operation to Johnson was actually only one small publicized aspect of "Operation Red Hat"/Project Red Hat." was a misrepresentation yet in the same complaint you quote my source. "However, new evidence has surfaced that Operation Red Hat was only the latest round in a long game of smoke and mirrors contrived by the Pentagon to hide the true extent of its CBW arsenal."

So where is the misrepresentation?

PS I just got an email from the author of that article with a Japanese news story. More buried barrels from DOW Chemical were uncovered last week (July 2013) on Okinawa and were sent for testing. Japans Minster of Defense promised to get to the bottom of it. http://news.tbs.co.jp/newseye/tbs_newseye5361512.html

More news articles coming. I'll mention the deletion to him and your concerns.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Army tested biological weapons in Okinawa Johnvr4 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hat article

I happened to notice this today and saw it has been userfied for you. Just wanted to say it's a really interesting article and a shame it has been deleted from mainspace. It's a shame that interesting articles are killed for political reasons. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I feel the same way. The old information and updated article is accessible on my user page or sandbox (most recent). It was my first Wikipedia try and there were valid concerns as some sources were not done correctly or pointed to the wrong source. That was my fault. When I started I did not even know how to cite stuff and had to use fill in the blank templates. The "help" I got was the deletion of material and then the whole article rather than assistance fixing errors that were found. It will be back will additional sources and correct sourcing that ties it all together. Three news articles have come out in the last two weeks and more are coming. Thanks againJohnvr4 (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Your recent editing history at Chemtrail conspiracy theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Stop the edit warring now. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Johnvr4 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Johnvr4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When someone does not like my submission of a legitimate properly-sourced, neutrally-worded, non-controversial edit and reverts or deletes it without any apparent legitimate reason, it is WP:vandalism. There is no consensus that would legitimately allow the blatant abuse of a cited source. When an editor reverts a legitimate repair of an abuse of a source that is marked as not in the given citation, that repair is legitimate and the reversion illegitimate- no matter how many times it is done by myself or anyone else. Reverting vandalism even repeated illegitimate reversions by multiple people is allowed. The three revert rule does not apply to this or these situation(s). Nor does it apply in situations where I revert my own edits or to resolve the specific concern of another reverting editor (according to the reason that was provided) as is also the case here. There is a discussion of the reversion issue on the talk page of the entry and on my talk page. It is clear I reverted more than three times but please view the histories and the reversion summaries for the reported reasons for each of the reversions. Please note that another editor who previously reverted my changes, had deleted my proposed changes and comments from the talk page. The talk page discussion negates legitimate justification for the deletion or reversion of my submission. The changes I made were discussed. I apologize for the lack of links in my appeal and for any disruption. I'm doing the best I can. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You may not label a content dispute as "vandalism" and revert to your heart's content, free from 3RR. Vandalism frequently involves the word "poop," which I see nowhere in this dispute. It's not enough to start a discussion, you must achieve a consensus too before undertaking controversial revisions. Labeling those you disagree with as vandals is very bad form, and you've admitted breaching 3RR. Acroterion (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Johnvr4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'll take the time out. However I would like to point out The appeal-declining editor apparently does not understand the entire meaning of WP:vandalism or when the 3RR applies or does not. His decision cannot stand give his faulty understanding of the vandalism concept. Vandalism does not require the word "poop" as the declining editor apparently believes. It is apparently often the case but not a requirement.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism.

My reversions were never an Edit War. When an editor replaces the first statement with the second in an abuse of the cited source, it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. The unsourced sentence is directly contrary to the cited sentence which is nearly a direct quotation taken from the cited source. "The term refers to forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting however the chemical trails that concern conspiracy theorists are none of these explanations".?UNIQd7e96db5b93593c9-nowiki-00000027-QINU?1?UNIQd7e96db5b93593c9-nowiki-00000028-QINU? The following language is simply not in the citation given- in fact it says the opposite of the same sentence properly cited above: XXX"The term does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying ('crop dusting'), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting."?UNIQd7e96db5b93593c9-nowiki-0000002A-QINU?1?UNIQd7e96db5b93593c9-nowiki-0000002B-QINU?XXX Again, There is no legitimate reason replace to the first sentence with the second: The chemtrail conspiracy theory is not entirely imagined.?UNIQd7e96db5b93593c9-nowiki-0000002D-QINU?2?UNIQd7e96db5b93593c9-nowiki-0000002E-QINU? with: XXX"...as there is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrail theory."-uncitedXXX This behavior cannot be considered good faith. There is no other argument than can be made requiring consensus. I assumed good faith but I find no reasonable justification to keep material I replaced on Wikipedia nor has one been offered. Perhaps the appeal-declining or reverting editors would be in some position explain how addition of the reverted material does not compromise Wikipedia's integrity and justify their own or others actions in keeping it. I have determined that the integrity of Wikipedia is compromised in keeping them and acted accordingly. Under the 3RR rule, I am claiming an exemption. There is a clearly visible edit summary of the changes and a separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. "When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard" as I mentioned previously, I am 100% certain my actions fall under the exemption to this rule. Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your contention that the edits you reverted were intended as vandalism is absurd. The criterion is not that you believe that edits "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", but rather that that was the intention, for which there is no evidence whatever. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Johnvr4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I said, I don't want to create a disruption. I'll keep the block but would like a better understanding of the reason so it doesn't happen again. I understand now that the vandalism has to be blatent and obvious. I don't know that others were acting with that intent. I expressed a concern on the talk page that the entry was covering another topic that redirected to it and undue weight to a third topic. Among the concerns were that sources were being abused etc. Perhaps the first two editors didn't check the talk page. Given that they took so little time in re-introducing it (under one minute each) there is little likelihood they checked the source and chose to resubmit it anyway. Perhaps they chose not to look, I have no idea. In any case, they reverted my edit without any consideration, regard, or verification of the content of my submission or determine whether there was an improvement in sourcing. I made an edit that clearly indicated that the reason for the reversions was that there was a problem in sourcing and the reversions were an attempt to rectify it. After which two more revisions to my submission were made (although my good faith effort was acknowledged). It is obvious these editors should have been aware that they were reintroducing a misused source. Again, I can not say that it was obvious intent on anyone's part to reintroduce bad material. I will assume it was an accidental reintroduction of the material. Future additions of such content that abuse the source in order to perpetuate a specific POV will be not be tolerated. Inclusion of abused sources in a controversial subject "compromises the integrity of Wikipedia." The sourcing in the entry needed to be fixed and improved (and still does). The 3RR prevented my ability to do that. WP:IAR If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. I personally hate this "rule" and would prefer to keep the block rather than cite it. IAR is not a way around building consensus. However, I do not need consensus to do fix the abuse of the source described above though I accept that it would be easier to make the change if there was. Is the rule appropriate or inappropriate for this situation? Here is the rest of the reversion history as I'm unsure if it was Provided to you by User:Dougweller. Thank you. *14:32, 24 January 2014‎ BullRangifer (Reverted good faith edits by Johnvr4 (talk): Don't edit war. Follow WP:BRD and get a consensus before making any controversial or disputed changes. *14:30, 24 January 2014‎ Johnvr4 (Undid revision 592176706 by Alexbrn) *14:23, 24 January 2014‎ Alexbrn (Undid revision 592176285 by Johnvr4 get consensus; don't edit war change in) *14:20, 24 January 2014‎ Johnvr4 (Reversions have not been discussed. the page is IN USE, Please quit reverting to unsourced information or that which abuses the sources. These change were discussed.) *14:09, 24 January 2014‎ Dougweller (Reverted to revision 592173226 by Tom harrison : Get agreement on talk page first for these major changes. *14:08, 24 January 2014‎ Tom harrison (article is about chemtrail conspiracy theory, not chemtrails) *14:00, 24 January 2014‎ Johnvr4 (Undid revision 592173226 by Tom harrison *13:50, 24 January 2014‎ Tom harrison (-1,284)‎ . . (not an improvement) *13:49, 24 January 2014‎ Johnvr4 (Undid revision 592136319 by Dougweller : chemtrails and the conspiracy surrounding is the subject and the changes were discussed on talk page.) *06:45, 24 January 2014‎ Dougweller (Reverted 10 edits by Johnvr4 : This is about the chemtrail conspiracy theory, not about contrails, *23:57, 23 January 2014‎ Johnvr4 . . (Repaired abuse of source) *23:39, 23 January 2014‎ Johnvr4 . . (finish previous edit removing unsourced) *23:37, 23 January 2014‎ Johnvr4 . . (removed unsourced The term specifically refers to...)Johnvr4 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"As I said, I don't want to create a disruption. I'll keep the block..." In that case, no need for us to read further than that. Please don't abuse the unblock process. only (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure how to help you, frankly. You were edit warring with no less than six other editors, five of which are long-term editors, two of which are administrators. You must gain consensus for your edits; you may not keep reverting and claiming that everyone else is a "vandal". WP:IAR is not appropriate here; you'll have to convince a large number of people that "ignoring the rules" resulted in a positive outcome, and you're clearly not doing that. Please - use the article's talk page and finish your discussions. If you are reverted, stop, and use the talk page to explain yourself and get consensus for your edits. You're having a garden-variety content dispute on a fringe topic and you will need to be very careful in your editing patterns when this block expires. Kuru (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnvr4, it worries me that you still don't seem to understand what constitutes edit warring, nor how BRD works. (Before I continue, you must understand that this has nothing to do with whether you are "right", or the content is properly sourced. You could be the only person on Earth who is right about it, and you'd still be in violation. We work by collaboration here, not force.)

When you make an edit, that is often the ONE "Bold" edit you are allowed. Period. That becomes clear when it is "Reverted". (If not, no problem.) That means someone disputed your edit, whether truly "controversial" or not. Their reversion tells you to "Discuss". When you see that happen, your first reaction should be to start a "Discuss"ion on the talk page and seek consensus. Don't go back to editing the article. It's spelled BRD, not BRBRD, or BRRRRD, etc.. If you break that sequence, YOU have started an edit war, regardless of how "right" you might be. (Note that there are situations where edit summaries are clearly used as communication, with a certain degree of back and forth which represents collaborative attempts to tweak and improve content, and that is not a true edit war.)

Just because BRD has not been elevated to "policy" yet doesn't mean it isn't widely accepted. In fact, it is our only nearly certain way to determine who has started an edit war. It is often used as an important part of the evidence used by some admins when they consider whether to block or not. (3RR need not be violated, as your second Bold edit (BRB) is an act of edit warring.) BRD really is that important, so you should always keep it in mind and assume it is in play, even if not invoked in an edit summary.

There are numerous possible reasons for why an editor might revert your edit. They might even think it's an amazingly good edit, but there might be other issues behind their reversion. Regardless, it is your duty to talk to them about it, get the matter clarified, and seek consensus, even if it means going through the steps of dispute resolution. There is simply no excuse, other than a clear (to everyone) BLP violation, for edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, Franky, it was a crappily done edit that was performed in haste last night to just make the fix. This morning I made the reversion and started to tune it up to standards only to have it repeatedly reverted before I could press save. It is a lunatic topic but but reading it in is current state leaves one confused and wondering what the heck a chemtrail is or isn't. "Chemtrail" redirects but is not defined in the entry. "Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory" hijacks the definition of "chemtrails" from Oxford Dictionary. Further attempts at definition of these terms appeared to abuse a source. It is baffling as to why six other editors, five of which are long-term editors, two of which are administrators would be so protective of this poorly done piece concerning fringe material. I think I even know who than sixth person was too. I know a lot of work went into it and perhaps it can be salvaged if it can ever be better defined. I myself struggle to create a simple diff link and have to wonder why those with so much experience have to ever-so-lazily revert. It's difficult to fathom that with all this experience on hand making numerous reversions, no one resolved the issue that I was trying to fix- which remains. That part is difficult to accept. User:BullRangifer, I appreciate that you recognized I was making good faith attempt at sourced clarification even if I did violate 3RR. I appreciate the time each of you took in responding to me and in considering the appeal.Johnvr4 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody thinks you were or are acting in bad faith. You must in turn remember that the other editors were acting in good faith as well, and expect to engage them and to persuade rather than to confront or accuse. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a large part of the problem here was that you continued to edit the article while also attempting to discuss. That's a violation of BRD and is considered edit warring. Stick ONLY to discussion on a small part of the topic until a consensus is reached. Then move on to other aspects. You were attempting to do too many things at one time, and reversion was the only way to stop you. There was no time to analyze what you were doing, and only time to force you to stop and stick to discussion. Now, if you still want to fix something, then pick your topic well, make it a small, very specific, one, and propose your edit on the talk page. Discuss that until a consensus has been reached, without making any edits to the article. If you can't reach consensus, then walk away from it. That's the way forward. If that works, good. If you can't do that, then a topic ban may be necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think I'm being a dick-I'm confused. A topic Ban?? For my good faith efforts? Any group can suggest a topic ban for me it would probably stick as I'm out-numbered and would be out-nominated. I made too many reversions on a single page in an allotted time, a 3RR violation-it will get you blocked-I understood that and I'm good with a time-out. Though I'm not sure there's ever a "violation" of BRD as its not a policy. I thought I followed BRD fairly closely except for the number of edits although in hindsight, I did not allow enough time for a response to the discussion or for changes to be made by others either. If editors do not wish to discuss the proposed or already-made changes on the talk page, it is hardy a violation much less a breach of BRD to make them anyway even without consensus. It sounds as if some editors are attempting to cite BRD as the justification for their reversions. BRD prevents invalid reversions (such as reverting simply because the previous edit is simply not liked). Per BRD, Reversions must be for legitimate reasons. At the same time, the R in BRD seems to actually require a reversion to when changes are made in order to 'send a message' of opposition and to challenge a previous bold edit. Yet, BRD cannot be invoked as a legitimate reason for a reversion. BRD seems to attempt to legitimize trial edits and allow otherwise unjustifiable reversions. This cannot work. No wonder its not a policy!

I attempted participation in a discussion both pre-edit and post-edit on the talk page. There was not any discussion that justified any of the multiple reversions by multiple experienced editors after they were made. I understand that sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. I challenged material and that disagreement over what should be kept turned into an edit war. Experienced editors are well familiar with WP:verifiability and that unverified statements are not acceptable on a main page, may be challenged and should be removed if they fail verification-it is not controversial. My simplified understanding is that if the poorly sourced material that I had edited out is ever to remain in the entry, then "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores the material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Shouldn't these same editors have some responsibility to either provide a reliable source for that which they restored or remove it rather simply put the entry back in a condition it was in "before the war"? If so, which editor has that responsibility? I think each of them did and they certainly do now. Each person who reverted my change added unverifiable material. I would ask them to make the necessary changes while this block in in effect. Conforming to the WP policy of verifiability is mandatory and does not constitute "my preferred version of an entry"; A discussion about the poorly sourced material (including the definition of the subject) was pre-posted on the entry talk page in three different sections [2] [3] [4]. I understand most of WP:BRD but a good part of BRD still confuses me and I do not understand who (if anyone) in the situation at hand was "best following BRD." I doubt it was me as I made too many changes and did not avoid the edit war. It seems like I was not the only one. I copy-pasted the part of BRD I'm very confused on.

BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow.

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones.

Note: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion; however, large edits and any edits that are potentially controversial are often the targets of reverts, so—in the spirit of collaborative editing—prior discussion is often wise.Johnvr4 (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that BRD is a bit of a distraction here. As you say, it isn't policy and this discussion probably isn't going to get anywhere. The main point is that you need to get agreement on the changes you've made. I'd also like you to remove the unblock request as it is inappropriate as you aren't asking for an unblock. If I saw it on a page where I wasn't involved I'd just decline it as not an unblock request. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus would be great. BRD IS a distraction and my points are being missed. One point I am making is that neither I nor anyone else needs consensus to adhere to WP's verifiability policy. Other editors need to adhere to it and do not have any choice or leeway. Rudeness, disruption, or division among editors is not my intent. It is apparently rude to have to ask more experienced editors not to add or restore unsourced or improperly sourced material. At some point this may have to be done. I don't feel like I should be the editor to have to do it. These are WP policy issues that should be being self-enforced. I don't see how the potential for rudeness is to be avoided given the verifiability problems of the reinserted content, the lack of willingness to discuss changes i proposed, the current state of the entry in question, and so many experienced editors joining forces to over protect and repeatedly re-insert content that violates WP policies or standards. After enough reinsertion of the same faulty material, mal-intent and the negative impact of ignoring the verifiability rule to Wikipedia's integrity must be analyzed. Perhaps it was not to that point yesterday, however that required analysis is fast approaching. If the behavior continues, every addition of policy violating material to the entry will be reported and/or deleted however embarrassing the experience may be to more experienced editors. I've had it done to me and it ain't fun when an editor is accused or abusing sources. The burden to verify that material being reintroduced is consistent with WP policies lies entirely with the editor inserting it. Material that abused the cited source was added repeatedly by experienced editors. Every attempt to justify it here or elsewhere has fallen flat. Is there some loophole to adhering to WP policy in place that I am unaware of besides IAR?

The other point is that I obviously want to be unblocked, I have requested it, though I have accepted that the block is the only way other editors have to address an ongoing edit war. I have a lot to discuss about the changes I propose and would like to continue doing this on the entry's talk page. Technically, I made too many edits so I deserved the time-out. I didn't wait long enough. But to to turn this into a BRD deal where I am at fault for not understanding the unenforceable-not necessarily an actual WP policy (BRD) protection racket of an opinion page entry that does not conform to WP policy is a problem. It takes more than one person to have an edit war and the 3RR does not need to be reached or exceeded to be guilty. Everyone here already knows that or should. Please make another decision on the appeal but please properly justify the decision to not lift it. It might be rude to continue asking for an unblock but with the expressed concern for not understanding edit warring or BRD as one reason being cited for not lifting it, the explanations provided seems like a bit (or a lot) of hypocrisy. However, I have asked to be unblocked. One reason I've continued to ask for an unblock is to further understand this process. The comments of other editors are helping me understand it. Thank you again for taking the time to respond. Please do not take offense that the request has not been withdrawn.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty massive IDHT behavior. You simply don't get the point, continually justify doing what you did that got you into trouble, and show no intention of changing. I fear that your return to the article will only start more disruption, so I propose a 1R (or no edit) sanction there. Only discuss, and learn to be more concise. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What point am I not getting? I was reported for violation the 3RR. I violated it because I thought it was justified. I still think my motivation was correct but consensus is that it does not excuse the violation which I've repeatedly admitted to. I did not avoid an edit war and became involved in repetitive reversions with the person I was reported by (who himself had made two reversions to 10 separate edits I submitted) and then others. I've promised to conform to all of the WP guidlines, not to disrupt, and improve. There is no reason for a sanction. What I needed to say about this violation incident has been said. Please move on.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding behavior toward other editors

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Scray (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow-up as I see in a section above that you've already read the NPA policy in the context of a prior personal attack. That makes this behavior even more concerning. -- Scray (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for personal attacks of other users at Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. only (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Johnvr4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. The statement is not about content I've added to this entry- of which there isn't any to speak of. Instead User:scray choose to post the following message and block me. "I don't see much evidence that this user is constructively engaged in improving this page or basing content on reliable sources." This is equally as offensive as were the comments of the other editors- nor is the statement even true. You don't see much evidence because my properly sourced submissions are reverted. I ask you or any other editor to show me one misuse of a source. This is a a link to my last edit on the entry. diff I include it as it was correctly sourced using per-approved sources that had consensus and the changes concerning definitions in the entry were discussed on the talk page and also had consensus.[5]. Disruptive edit, not an improvement? That opinion is not supportable. The changes were made to bring the entry into compliance with WP:lead standards because the definitions were faulty. [6]. Now I ask you (again #2), what content have I submitted on that page that had an unreliable source as you've alleged when blocking me? You have made the same unfounded accusation as the other two editors. Regardless of what you think of another editor's edits, keep that to your self! If you post a derogatory comment about me and can't back up the statement, you are lying too apparently simply in an attempt to damage my credibility. It is that simple. Now I formally ask you to Point out the reference are referring to in your negative posts about me! This is not a difference of opinion. It is a fabrication and a personal attack upon my credibility. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You commented on both! and were not truthful in your comment about the content and sources. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Instead, you added more of them. In addition, for like the fourth time, this person decides to call me "a full blown believer and pusher of this conspiracy theory" which I repeatedly denied. I took offense. (I could have opinions and theories about his mother but I don't go around posting them). Both other editors received talk messages from me. After you came along, One editor user: Dbrodbeck apologized for his statement.[7]. I appreciate that and accept his apology and will tell him so when unblocked. The other person user:Brangifer received a call for truce on his talk page but refused to retract his comment.[8] He has repeated attacked my credibility and now has thrown out a serious accusation without one shred of foundation or substance and banned me from his talk page. His badgering continues on the entry talk page without apology or any shred of anything to substantiate his offensive comment.[9] To have User:scray come along and say stuff like " Regardless of what you think of another editor's edits, name-calling (a personal attack) won't go well." I did not call a name. I called a spade a spade and gave good evidence that I was calling it as it presented itself. I did not comment on his edits, I commented the fact that he did not consider my reference to articles from the Washington post, San Francisco Chronicle, Associated press, and National archives of the Government of Canada to be reliable sources. Unbelievably, you seem be echoing his position. I probably won't post this elsewhere but if you can't show me an example of using a poor source on that page, it is obvious that you have also posted the same fabrication about me in reference to sources. Anyone who fabricates or perpetuates or posts derogatory information is a liar. Liars cannot be trusted and lying editors compromise the integrity of WP. user:Scray said "I don't see much evidence that this user is constructively engaged in improving this page or basing content on reliable sources." User:scray needs to show me where evidence was seen by him that had I based something in the entry on an unreliable source (#3). User:scray can not substantiate the posted comment the made. If you don't prove it with an example, then your statement is a lie. If you find yourself in this situation, then you are a liar and you have personally attacked this editors credibility. If that is the case, I'd currently be being blocked by a person that personally attacked me and my credibility with a lie and not even one that was repeated. It is new a lie that was made up after your own alleged observation (*"I don't see much evidence of..."). If it wasn't a fabrication, wp:proofit SHOW ME the proof or what you believe is proof(#4). Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Lie A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally.[1] I don't have a source but a person who lies is a liar. WP:Spade To "call a spade a spade" is a figure of speech which explicitly calls out something as it is; by its right name. The implication is not to lie about what something is and instead to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity, unpleasant or embarrassing nature.[1] Calling a spade a spade is not name calling nor is calling a one who lies a Liar. If you've something to say about anything, be honest and be able to back it up with facts. If you negatively comment or make allegations about my alleged poor sources, then you should be able to show it or cite at least one example of your own. Otherwise, It is a personal attack. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." Let me stop you right there. Policy is hardly that clear, and for a good reason IMO—it creates situations like this. At this point I think that, with all these wall-o'-text unblock requests which keep getting longer all four times they've been declined, it would best for all of us if you waited the block out. So, I'm revoking your talk page access for the duration. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't a policy link, but it's a useful one, in my opinion, both for life here and in the world outside. WP:TLDR Peridon (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Episodic text-only communication on the Internet is a difficult art that requires some skill to negotiate, and which relies on certain norms. One fundamental norm is to keep it short and to the point. Another norm is that we can only judge people by what they have written, with no other cues. What you have provided on the article talkpage has been viewed by other editors as advocacy of a conspiracy theory. That is not, in itself, a personal attack, it is merely a summary of a perception you have created, perhaps unintentionally. Criticism of sourcing isn't a personal attack: editors are encouraged to hold other editors' feet to the fire to ensure good sourcing: this is an encyclopedia, after all. Baldly stating that another editor who has commented in good faith is a liar is unequivocally a personal attack, and is not tolerated. Your unblock request is a good example of what is called wikilawyering, and is frowned upon. Wikipedia is not a court of law, it is a collaborative effort to write the best encyclopedia we can make. Once again, you are confusing criticism of your writings with personal criticism, and have retaliated with a direct personal attack. I've warned you about that, and it can't continue. Reiterating the same attack in an unblock request is guaranteed to result in a rejection of your request. Acroterion (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat what I wrote above. The reaction and following events have sadly proven it to be very prophetic:

"This is pretty massive IDHT behavior. You simply don't get the point, continually justify doing what you did that got you into trouble, and show no intention of changing. I fear that your return to the article will only start more disruption, so I propose a 1R (or no edit) sanction there. Only discuss, and learn to be more concise."

I believe a topic ban is the only solution here. This editor needs to leave this, and similar, topics alone for a while. Do the Fringe or PSI sanctions apply here? If so, they need to be applied. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When one factors in the information and AfD mentioned here, a topic ban may not be enough to prevent future disruption. There are serious and basic competence issues as well: RS, OR, SYNTH, PROMO, OWN, and NPA are not understood by this editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First I'm a little obsessive with unfounded criticism. Sorry about that, It makes me long-winded. I'm not at all obcessive with this topic- which I could give two deuces about- once it is properly sourced and defined.

User:Brangifer has a lot to say about me. Perhaps one example of unreliable sourcing as described to show good faith? It shouldn't be difficult. I assumed good faith and ask for one example, never got. No shred of anything to indicate good faith on his part except a WP:policy-based assumption. Is it an assumption of bad faith to ask for proof or evidence that should not be difficult to provide? Is is bad faith not to provide it? It not a search warrant I'm seeking. He implies I have a pattern of it. I have seen zero evidence to the contrary, so as far as I'm concerned, to me his edit make him comes across as a full-blown, straight-up liar.

Read that carefully as I didn't say he is a liar (name-calling). It's just that without one specific example for his accusations against me, he surely come across as one with his recent edit. I've been assured this is not an attack and is an acceptable use.

"What you have provided on the article talkpage has been viewed by other editors as advocacy of a conspiracy theory."

Let me get this straight, Rule#1 is that A conspiracy theory can have no evidence. Rule#2 There is none to have that's even remotely related. Rule#3 So none can be considered.

It's a made up theory. However, (paranoid) people's crazy theories are usually based on some remote kernel of truth. Kernels of truth in wild theories have documentation. It does not validate the theory and there is not reason not to consider current beliefs against past history. The source says 1970s which I pointed out, gets added to the entry, source disappears. WP is full of rule followers who can't think logically or realize when they are being made to lay down in the $hit sources they picked for themselves.

I provided public domain information documented by and available from unimpeachable sources as a hey look at this and tell me if it's it related to this subject (It is). Then the accusations start. Unfounded ones.

I'm not advocating for any conspiracy. Not one of those four links did either. The info was 40-50 years old.

Seen as advocacy of a conspiracy?

Which conspiracy?

And which other editors?

Problem with sourcing? Which source?

I need an example to show good faith. This is not court but show me that the accusations have merit. With out one example, It proves they knew what they said about me they knew to be untrue. The concerns mentioned are made up any without any merit. Hence- the lie.

It is a personal attack because I told him that these accusations were offensive to me, yet it continued. My exact words were "To accuse me of being a believer in this crap is offensive to me and is taken as personal attack." I told this person numerous times that I am not a believer yet he continues to accuse me of being some nutjob is an attack. "Believers" don't cite reliable verifiable unimpeachable sources or say the theory is complete BS.

Posting that my sourcing is bad when there is nothing to show that, is an attack. It was not in good faith. It's made up because not one example can be provided to substantiate it or the good faith intent. If it was good faith, one example should have been able to be provided in order demonstrate and substantiate his good faith. If we had that, there never would have been a problem with what was said. The comment is simply untrue as I've stated and he knew it. This is no difference of opinion as he has characterized it.

Look at it from my point of view, Would you like if I said?

Go edit somewhere else.

You are a full blown believer and pusher of the chemtrail conspiracy theory and your use of unreliable sources to do it doesn't exactly help your credibility?

If I have zero evidence how can I say it in good faith or without attacking you?

You've said "Baldly stating that another editor who has commented in good faith is a liar is unequivocally a personal attack, and is not tolerated." How else does one responded to a bald-faced lie?

A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it.

My intent, since I came upon this piece o' crap entry was to hold other editors' feet to the fire to ensure good sourcing. The entry needs definition and the current one is based on Stieg. There is a source that has been in use for (7?) years that each of these expeienced editors have insisted on using and reverting back to. Rather than hold feet to fire -because no one will let me change it, I am making them lie in this stupid source by forcing them to use it. I used a perfectly cited sentence from the source they seemed to hold so dear. With it, I crushed their definition of the subject. They don't like it. I believe this may what the editors are referring to unreliable sourcing and if so that is also unfounded as they established that source as reliable not me!

I found that the source was being abused (as bad as the source is) and tried to correct it. It's a source the article relies on and that each of the editors of it has been reverting back to as I said for years! As you can see my efforts have paid off and thing are changing Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brad_Steiger_book (added today after last revision and ban). Most of what I wanted to change is going or will go, though only because I want to make them lie all up in that crappy source, who's abuse by so many highly experienced editors has been status quo for so long. Holding feet to fire? They had the chance to hold their own feet.

This entry needs to be shaken up. If not by me by someone. If status quo is to remain in that entry it needs to be challenged and be defended and with proper sourcing. This fringe topic is getting too much attention and it needs to go, be sensibly fixed, or be made a sub-section under contrails since that is where all of the undue weight and photos in this entry already are.Johnvr4 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"RS, OR, SYNTH, PROMO, OWN, and NPA are not understood by this editor." - ARE or WERE? I'm sure you have examples for our review?Johnvr4 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR User:Acroterion has Nailed it! User:Peridon I read this twice. I think he needs to say whether the non-alcoholic apple juice was from concentrate or whether it was imported. I'm gonna ask him when this block is over.TYJohnvr4 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're not seeing any change of behavior, and zero signs of a positive learning curve after all these blocks, I feel it would be wrong to allow this editor anymore access to Wikipedia. It's time for a very long block, or an indef.

Several times I've seen repeated unblock requests rewarded by an indef (the fourth request was considered too many), for no other reason than the IDHT behavior shown by such repeated requests revealed the editor was more interested in doing battle than in quietly and collaboratively working with others.

Above there is zero AGF and repeated, even strengthened, attacks and classic battlefield behavior, with declarations of intent to do more of the same. We can't accept that. Blocks are supposed to teach a lesson and protect Wikipedia from disruption. In this case the lesson is not learned, and the declared intent shows that much stronger blocks or bans is needed to protect Wikipedia from the declared course of action.

Allowing this block to run its course is not a responsible option anymore. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Of course, if the editor does not abuse the editing privileges on their talk page, they will be able to compose an appeal and end the indef. This will protect WP while preserving their opportunity to return to edit constructively. Their past behavior makes this seem very unlikely, though. -- Scray (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see some post-block interaction without drama. Have stricken my suggestion in hope that this is resolved. -- Scray (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at Chemtrail conspiracy theory

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about discretionary sanctions in the area of pseudoscience and fringe science broadly construed.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

@@ Line 258: / Line 258: @@
 # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
 If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.''' [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
+== Notice about discretionary sanctions in the area of pseudoscience and fringe science broadly construed. ==
+{{Ivmbox
+| The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to [[pseudoscience]] and [[fringe science]]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], satisfy any [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standard of behavior]], or follow any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision|Final decision]]" section of the decision page.<p>
+Please familiarise yourself with the information page at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]], with the appropriate sections of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures]], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and&nbsp;will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
+| Ambox warning blue.svg
+| icon size = 40px
+}}<!-- This message is derived from Template:Uw-sanctions -->