User talk:Johnvr4

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) 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

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. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

sorry about this. i cannot figure out why you are so intent on getting the "no books" thing in - but in any case you have no consensus on the talk page for that, but you keep inserting it. again, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another misrepresentation of the facts. The talk page quite clearly states that there is concensus but without the clarification I requested on what has concensus.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue is really simple. You don't have consensus for the edit, but you keep making it. I posted to the noticeboard because you seem dedicated to getting it in, regardless of opposition. That is the definition of edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus was determined by the quality of the arguments as all counter arguments lacked quality.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

As one of the participants you are not in a great place to assess the quality of arguments, are you. Look John, the right way to proceed when there are disagreements is WP:DR, not continually making the edit. I have no more to say here; you are probably going to be warned or maybe blocked. We can talk more after the EWN case is sorted. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I was able to determine 2/3 of the concerns about my edits were completely made up with zero basis in reality. It is obvious that the other 3rd of the concerns lacked any support or reason. It wasn't that difficult of a determination to make. Why would it?Johnvr4 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Direct link with comments: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive331#User:Johnvr4_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29 Johnvr4 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

• John, I realize you have been alerted about this before, and it's not my intention to pester you. But since the earlier alert was in 2014, you might reasonably have forgotten it. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the reminder. For years several editors kept reinserting garbage from Chemtrail update personal website into that article repeatedly. [1]. I repeatedly called it vandalism.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There was even a warning from an editor user:Second Quantization who went out of his way to protect idiotic content of the conspiracy website source and prevented the only editor that recognized what was happening (Me) from fixing it while every other involved editor on that page at that time seemed hell bent on reinserting the dubious material they would not verify while saying I was simply edit warring.

Each editor on the noticeboard had the same opinion and also repeatedly called it edit warring while failing to recognize the root of the issue which was BS content from a conspiracy site. Vandalism may have been too strong a term as I misinterpreted intent rather than the result.

The fact is that the other involved editors absolutely won that "edit war" but they looked really bad doing it when I showed these editors had been reinserting that dubious content for many years. The comment here may be a bit WP:pointy but this explanation will continue each time and every time the issue is brought up because not one editor verified the source themselves and I was the one held accountable for their ineptitude. The archive will be always available for every involved editor to refer back to in hindsight if an editor takes issue with my synopsis. I had a faulty mouse when I typed the notice board responses. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Note

Johnvr, it seems that you have a longer term goal of getting the history of how the conspiracy developed into the article. Pounding away on this book thing in a way that is garnering no support, is digging yourself a big hole. It is useful to be strategic - don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. That goal has it's own talk section and sandbox which you were kind enough to help me with. Please come back to the talk section on it.

"The book thing" was an edit that I felt was very highly unlikely to be challenged. It looks like I was wrong somehow but as of this edit, no one has explained how. If this is how my edits to only change a few words are going to be received, we may be in for a long policy-based discussion. It's obvious that we could all get a whole lot done towards improving the article with some constructive criticism and discussion and compromise. So, please stop fighting and come on out of your trench. This isn't a war. Let's talk about it sensibly. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Red Hat draft

I've made some notes about my reactions to your draft at my talkpage. Honestly the article doesn't hang together as it is; there are too many barely-related subjects in it (in my view, eg there's no need for a separate section about Japanese research involvement, merely one sentence in some relevant section.) Buckshot06 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The J-research was part of the link to Okinawa in the Korean War BW allegations. I had moved some of it to my sandbox2 and other parts to Allegations of biological warfare in the Korean War and condensed some more. You are correct in that it will need more condensing. Assertions that Red Hat chemicals came to Okinawa without the knowledge of Japan's policy makers was the initial purpose for the section after as with similar to the assertions about knowledge of US nukes. Harris tied that together with the subsequent US research leading to Project 112 and also with insects and crops. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to Operation Red Hat

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Operation Red Hat without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Red Cap

Why don't you split out Red Cap as a completely separate article? Happy New Year Buckshot06 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I may need to that at some point. I am not sure how it everything fits together with a solid distinction between Red Hat and Red CAP, alleged "Waterfall," and Project 112 given the descriptions in the limited sources available and I can't seem to find the actual published articles from Vietnam or in Sweden. I currently only have the transcript of interview and a final draft copy of the Marlowe article. Given the controversy over OP Tailwind which did briefly mention but did not address Cambodia allegations and also the DTC test (Project112) there is that the Project 112 name was still sort of classified during the Tailwind dispute (I still need to verify that), I am not sure how a stand-alone Red Cap article would go over at this point and it may be premature to move it. I'll need more help with the MOS but I've been doing some rearranging in the organization of the draft and hope that it will make a bit better sense when I'm done and the parts that obviously don't belong will stand out. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Your recent editing history at Beacham Theater shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Beetstra I already warned you about an edit war. You can't come back and warn me in revenge. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation, this is not revenge, this is WP:3RR, a bright line. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You violated 3RR when I first warned you and 3RR does not apply to correcting mistakes. Clearly you are mistaken given the edit summaries of the entry and discussion on your page. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to correcting mistakes That's simply incorrect. Could you please self-revert and work to find someone that agrees with your viewpoints about the links? --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not violate 3RR, I removed once, you reverted, I reverted again. This was not a mistake, it was a reasoned removal in accordance with our policies and guidelines. That may be an edit war, it is not 3RR. You are now really at the verge of 3RR.

I suggest, per Ronz, that you revert yourself and then find consensus for the inclusion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you counting my good faith efforts to change the actual links as Reverts for 3RR? Wasn't the sub-page that the links were pointing your concern? Johnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping you will put aside the need to try to find ways around 3RR, and instead try to gain consensus. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This was my mistake as 3RR does in fact include edits and reverts to different material in the count. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Beacham Theatre. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Do not continue to reinsert material that has been challenged by multiple editors w/o talk page consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

This is excessive and the issue is currently under three separate discussions where I've asked that links not be modified until the discussion was over. Please at least unblock to continue those talk page discussions. *here:User talk:Beetstra #edit war at Beacham Theatre *here:ELN #Beacham Theatre *and now here:Talk:Beacham Theatre #In line external links There is not yet even consensus about which link or links the discussion is referring to! Now not one editor will even point to a specific link of concern to discuss. My questions and requests for clarification are being ignored. The fact is that the involved editor that I reverted refused to open a talk page section at the entry and has not explained a valid position or counter-argument for his deletions. He was engaged in his own edit war which I warned him about and he violated 3RR but that is no excuse for my own violation to correct what I thought and still think is a mistake and misunderstanding of the WP:EL policy. I was already refraining from more edits of the link materiel. My last revert was not at all related to the contested links. During the next 24 hours had I hoped to make the position obvious in further discussion. The absurd part is that the material I re-inserted is not even the same material being challenged as each link was modified to address the concerns as explained in the edit summaries! Only one or possible two of the links that the editor and others have now deleted has not been modified after the concerns were raised. The External links in the external links section that are being complained about and the links being deleted are not pointing to the same sub-page are not even to the same material as they previously were. There is no valid dispute about the updated links. These links are not controversial and comply with WP policy. The dispute was about the format of prior links and certain editors not understanding the well-established exceptions to those WP:EL policies Each link was modified per WP policy, it is justified and what was reinserted is not even the same materiel. There was no valid reason to delete the links in the first place as shown in in the edit summaries or discussions. Consensus is based on the validity of the argument rather than voting. Please consider the abnormal discussion processes that I had to use to understand and rectify such concerns and try to follow them as well as the content of the discussion in determining consensus or edit warring violations. It isn't super clear because it is now in three places and would take a lot of time to review and is very likely more than an administrator would want to deal with. Please understand this is not my fault and I was in the process of clarifying concerns when I was blocked. Now this is a catch-22 where I can't very clearly express that to other editors that I'm in discussion with or to an administrator trying to review it. Thank you for this consideration of this matter. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here. But if there is anymore re-adding challenged material w/o crystal clear consensus you will be blocked again, probably for more than 24 hrs. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point you seem unable to acknowledge that no one agrees with your perspective, and that consensus is unlikely to change. I suggest you move on, as your repeated dismissals of others' comments are difficult to see as good faith efforts to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Put forth a quality argument. That is all. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I was in the process of removing my comment when you responded.

I didn't notice the closure at COIN, and don't want to be seen as piling on. My apologies. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the apology. Can you please understand I am not intending to promote and am receptive to modification of each link or removal per policy concerns? There was a logical reason for each link and perhaps the policy was not well understood. Let's get this done and move on. We are arguing about BS. I self-reported to Coin to clear my name.

For the offline archives of material would the creation of a list work? Johnvr4 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not intending to promote I didn't intend to convey that interpretation. SOAP problems, at least those that don't result in a quick block/ban/etc, aren't about whether or not anyone is trying to promote anything but rather the difference between content that is encyclopedic in nature versus content that is "propaganda, advertising and showcasing". Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish. In this case, I'm not clear what source even verifies what related content there is in the article, so it's difficult to judge, but almost impossible to make a strong case for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. The addition of the rollo art pic did not promote rollo. The replacement link for the whole piece did not promote anything either. That particular link does not verify anything. It is Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 2, 2013) Dance dance revolution that verifies.

Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture is a companion to the cited source and provides reader with reliable info about the subject that can't otherwise be used in the article because of copyright.

Note: I am not trying to bypass WP:EL nor abandon my previous arguments with the suggestion to create a list. WP:LWA (WP:LWA#External link spamming) The primary purpose of external links from Wikipedia articles is to provide users with sources of additional reliable information about the topic.

My opinion and my previous editing was make the direct link to the rollo art pic as that would in my opinion gave the reader the most (but not all) the info with the least amount of clicks while still retaining all the links to the rest of Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture as compared to this link to the whole piece [2]. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Link to external links discussion: WP:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_19#Beacham_Theatre (closed) Johnvr4 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Orlando's Summer of Love

An article that you have been involved in editing—Orlando's Summer of Love—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ahecht, I've added a crap load of sources to review for notability. We probably do not need all of them at this time so I will leave it in your capable hands to whittle them down and merge/redirect if that is the correct path going forward. I also was not sure of the title. Thank you for your help. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Air defense interceptors/Genie

I've reviewed every source you propose for the paragraph below, and still cannot find any mention of air defence interceptors. Which of the four sources you cite has this wording?

In the event of mass air penetration by an enemy attacking Okinawa, air defense interceptors stood ready to scramble with nuclear warhead tipped missiles that were kept on alert status. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, thanks for the message. since i did not see it after a quick look, "Genie" was probably just a statement of fact but possible syn as it was a very simple process of elimination~the nukes that F-100 & F-106 carried.

"Interceptor is mentioned here (#16 on p.6-7). it would be "#4 CDI" in your message and I had just added it to the entry (probably just as you left your note). I also added some more support for other contested material which I hope is now sufficient. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with using that CDI source (apart from listing four refs, three of which don't support the sentence). 1) we're not certain that the base in question was Okinawa (which is why me and Hohum keep removing that other paragraph). 2) You've converted 'could carry nuclear-armed missiles' into *did* carry nuclear-armed missiles. The CDI source says that the interceptors 'could' carry nuclear-armed AAMs. Your phrasing in the article has always been along the lines of 'nuclear-armed interceptors *stood* ready for scrambling' -- implying that they *did* carry the weapons. You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to be certain about Okinawa as the section is titled suspected! and that is why I'll keep putting it back in...

I did not convert could to did. Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now.

Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!

"Alert" (armed, fueled, sitting on apron, with a pilot sitting in the seat or nearby) and the nuke bunkers and hangers for the alert interceptors are still at Naha airport. ::::Johnvr4 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources. Nothing says that nuclear-armed interceptors were sitting alert at Naha; that's why I talked about could vs did from the CDI source. I've gone as far as I can by finding the squadrons and the aircraft involved (16th and 82nd FISs) and putting a sentence in. 'Suspected' simply does not cut it on Wikipedia; if it's not verifiable it shouldn't be here.

What's your personal involvement with this? I'm intrigued; how do you know the hangers are still there - or were there in the first place? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone traveling to the Naha airport can see it of can look on goolge earth and see it in plain sight or they could use their device to verify Naha Air Base was the interceptor base back then and that the Japanese are still there on alert. Or to it could be used to look at one of the cited sources that says F-100 and nukes on Okinawa... Apparently you are the only one who cant do that. Still!

You've stated a few times that, "I have reviewed the sources" and that the support is not in there~ nonsense!

I've repeatedly warned you that you really must review those sources before making that assertion again. Your assertions now imply a certain lack credibility and your lack of competence with this material and reading the verifiable sources supporting it is painfully obvious.

I took out Naha but I could put it back and add Kadeda and South Korea too! I guess I'll just have to put those all quotes in here so other every other editor can see what happened with these totally false assertions and all those faulty edits based on them for the rest of forever. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"US military went on full alert deploying F-100 fighters armed with nuclear weapons from Kadena AB on Okinawa to Kunsan, South Korea as well as preparing for strikes against Mainland China from all bases."

"With this in mind, in 1954 the U.S. brought hydrogen-bomb armed F-100 fighter-bombers to its key hub in the Pacific, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa — the first of thousands of nuclear weapons that it would station on the island before their removal in 1972 (see accompanying stories)."

"1950s and 60s F-100 Super Sabre served as primary interceptor...could carry nuclear capable air-to-air missiles. Was carrying one on Jan 18, 1959 at one of four Pacific bases (&Okinawa etc.)....on a reveted hardstand...ground alert configuration...weapon on left wing"

"In 1954, the U.S. brought hydrogen-bomb armed F-100 fighter-bombers to its key hub in the Pacific, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa — the first of thousands of nuclear weapons that it would station on the island before their removal in 1972." Johnvr4 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these Johnvr4. Clearly 'interceptor' isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, which are not tied definitively to Okinawa, and substitute 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a temp edit to say I found 2 refs for found genie and will modify and update in morning. One ref is called "umbrella" I think Johnvr4 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC).

• "Contingency plans existed in 1967 for deployment of the Genie air-to-air missile to Japan. Although the Genie missile is dual-capable, the documents clearly identify the missiles that would be deployed under these contingencies as nuclear missiles. This represents the first association of nuclear-armed Genie missiles with Japanese deployment. The details of the contingencies under which the missiles would be deployed remain classified." This source talks all about alert status --even after 1972 in Japan!

• "The Genie in Wartime would carry a nuclear warhead... Forty-one Hoosier-based airmen are, knocking "enemy planes" out of the Skies above the Gulf of Mexico with explosive accuracy to prove they are defenders from sneak air attacks. The 41 career airmen, members of the 319th Interceptor Squadron F-102 Delta Daggers, F-104 Star Fighters and F-10O Super Sabers. Fliers of these planes came to the meet from such distant USAF bases as Naha AFB, Okinawa."

For "interceptor" please see interceptor aircraft, scrambling (military), Ground-controlled interception, North American F-100 Super Sabre, F-106, F-104, or 319th Fighter Interceptor Training Squadron all of which use the word interceptor without any of the qualms or issues you are having with using it.

I'm going to move this discussion to the subject talk page. Other editors are complaining that reverts are taking place without discussion. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion Moved to Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparent POV

I write to give you the opportunity to clarify this edit. Why are you calling this source dubious when you youself introduced it and cited it repeatedly, previously? Why is the paragraph I summarised now suddenly dubious? What are you writing in your edit summary about Neither Confirm Nor Deny when the issue at hand is actually the reason for weapons withdrawal from Japan (and Taiwan and the Philippines)? Please avoid introducing an anti-United States Department of Defense point of view into the article; this is forbidden by our WP:FIVEPILLARS. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is good however it is your use of it to reach dubious conclusions that is concerning. Your conclusion about the Terrorists and Removed in 1972 is disputed by that source and others and my concern is already explained in the edit summary and at the talk page. The edit summary is: "source: "The motivation behind the NCND was the increasing need to fend off queries from foreign governments – rather than protecting against terrorists and Soviet military planning"

It you want to edit that page, then you need to watch the talk page and participate in discussion there. As you well know, the section that addresses that particular editing is here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Faulty_edit_RS_vs._undue_weight

Quote:

"The paragraph you cite above, "With the reversion of Okinawa" etc forms para 6 of Kristensen's article. The very next para, para 7, begins "Although nuclear weapons were removed from Okinawa in the late 1970s" which I believe substantiates the generally held belief at the time. Thus nuclear weapons were removed in 1972, it seems, though forces on Okinawa (possibly the 18 TFW) may have been held at some level of nuclear alert state for other reasons -- possibly ready to employ nuclear weapons which would have arrived during transition-to-war. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Perhaps they never left in 1972 or perhaps they were brought back after- I haven't looked for clarification. From Kristensen, some "were removed in 1972" and some were removed from Okinawa in the late 1970s. [“Secret” 1965 Memo Reveals Plans to Keep U.S. Bases and Nuclear Weapons Options in Okinawa After Reversion] Johnvr4 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What anti-DoD position(s) are you accusing me of introducing exactly?

"If you think for one second that you are going to edit about controversial issues in Okinawa without presenting the majority and minority viewpoints in our sources then you are going to have much larger problems. So, I insist that you fully elaborate on your alleged concern and the appropriate WP:FIVEPILLARS policy that you believe is relevant to that concern! Johnvr4 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And concerns about vulnerability to terrorist attack were apparently a primary issue. Stop removing mention of that from the article!! Kristensen says this, and you've not introduced any other section of Kristensen that says he contradicts himself, or any other source that terrorist attacks were not a concern. This was clearly not all about sovereignty. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, again, a 1965 memo does not prove that weapons were retained on the island after 1972: you need a separate good source, and Kristensen examined all the available sources and concluded they were removed circa 1972!! Another source you found yourself said that Japan was asked to fund complete withdrawal of the weapons c.1972!! It's like saying that the U.S. plan to retain four large bases in Iraq c.2009-10 shows that the bases (Balad etc) were retained after OND finished, when in fact everything left the country!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I told you there might be contradictory reliable sources. Didn't I? And I have NO IDEA what your anti-DoD accusation entails but it sounds ridiculous on the face of it.

Understand that I am not disputing that Kristensen talks about terrorists. But, Kristensen later offers more information about "terrorist threat" and you apparently stopped reading the source too early. Per my edit summary(S), I (for now) am disputing your interpretation of what Kritensen is saying about terrorists versus the reason for removal. There is no doubt Kristensen mentions terrorists and that guards weren't set up for them. The interpretation I got from that source was that the threat was related to the neither confirm nor deny policy which itself was related to plausibly deniable to all nations including the host country to allow transit even after reversion which itself was related to nukes in Japan in the 1950s (J-sovereignty). The US would rely on secret agreements they already had in their possession. Like I explained, we need to explore this further and talk about it -But please let's do it on the article's talk page. (*note: The nuke removal and the gas removal were negotiated at same time, Japan was made to pay. Some Gas was stolen from a depot in Okinawa).

That is my concern, previously expressed- repeatedly, your removal of tags and reinsertion of the material without a new look at the source as I requested or further discussion (again) is edit warring. Lets move the conversation to the talk page and explore it there. I thought we made good effort yesterday. Please don't ruin it. I suggest proposing edits and expressing your concerns clearly.

I think we'll get a lot more done by discussing proposed edits. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made a place for this material if you choose to pursue it. Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction# Terrorism_and_Japan Johnvr4 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope you've read the valuable advice BrownHairedGirl wrote at her talkpage. Your writing is non-neutral and based on OR (PRIMARYSOURCES), and your conduct is frankly somewhat worse than bad. When you are fighting to keep allegations in a section amply stuffed of U.S. military misjudgement and errors, which speak for themselves, you're too close to the subject. If I could offer some advice, I'd step away from the computer, avoid editing for 48 hours, and consider whether you need to make your undoubtedly worthy contributions where you can write polemics (because there's lots of value in polemics on U.S. military misbehaviour, and you do live in a democracy. You might just change opinions, or, if you're very lucky, policy).

But if you wish to continue on this site, you need to take very serious account of her numbered advice, especially point 1 - which reflects how many times I have referred you to WP:OWN. Otherwise, though it might not be me (I'm frankly sick of trying to shepherd you) you will face administrator intervention again at some point, because what you're writing and how you're writing it breaches our rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I read it and thanked her. Perhaps you should read it again because you have utter confuse IS with WAS. User:BrownhairedGirl wrote of the original article deletion and conduct from 2013 when I was a rookie editor and did not understand a lot of policies (including the RSN). She stated that read nothing but the initial deletion and made no comment on the draft or anything of sort about new edits that you are blatantly mis-representing here. You sir are not only fighting over your POV, you are edit warring over highly dubious content because you continue to refuse to address my concerns just as you have with the issue I brought forth just above. Frankly I am tired the behavior too. Tired is not even the word for it. Make sure you address the my concern if you put that terrorist material back in the main space. I will take you to task over it.

Closed. Moving to Talk:U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands Johnvr4 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - TheMagnificentist 13:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

MfD debate

At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat I have nominated your stale userpage for deletion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

John, should you wish to contest the deletion, you need to make the arguments at the above linked page. Removing the tag from the page is specifically disallowed at WP:DPAFD. Removing the template from the page in question will not stop the process- the closing admin will merely make one more step. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for coming to the MfD page to put your side of the story. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for straight up lying in that MfD.

And I quote: "The user has not condensed the material."

Please compare both of the two pages you nominated and try to convince anyone that the material was not condensed (or that you didn't know it was)! I have your quotes and diffs and justifications for mass deletions as well as all the sources to prove those assertions and justifications wrong. I warned you to stay away from me. But why are you were unable to tell the honest truth?

All of the material in Talk:U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan came straight out of that huge draft only because I had condensed it out of my sandbox!!

Go ahead and tell other editors that you aren't lying when you say "The user has not condensed the material" and then look at this edit summary:

[as edited by Johnvr4 at 14:29, 17 March 2017 (Creation. moved from my sandbox)].

There are several more lies in your assertions. You sicken me!!! Johnvr4 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly I should have explained myself more clearly. The implied additional clause in 'The user has not condensed the material" is 'to produce an article that meets the requirements of WP:ARTICLE' etc. To produce a coherent text on a single topic. I thought that was obvious. Yes, of course you were tinkering with the draft. I could see that. Let me copy out a couple of texts from what I wrote at Mark Arsten's talkpage:

(1)"My strong view on the article deleted in 2011, shared by others, was that it was too long and too disconnected. If we two together allow ourselves to focus on that, there is a much stronger likelihood of more of your draft seeing mainspace. Please go back and take a look at WP:ARTICLE if you like, about what kind of subjects normally hang together coherently for Wikipedia purposes."

(2)"Your draft as it [stood] has no 'golden thread' - single argument traceable from beginning to end. It's not a coherent article addressing one issue - instead it conflates, confusingly, multiple issues of which many arguably really don't address the core topic. That's why when I started editing the original article several years ago I was excising multiple chunks of text. That is my overall concern." Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

..and from PMC at the review: "the draft had not been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace." Buckshot06 (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No joke you should have explained it. I thank you for trying to do that, Now that you did, let us explore whether your assertions bear any relationship to the honest truth.

First what you deleted was not an "Article". It was a work in progress userspace draft that was almost but not quite ready to publish- as was explained to you dozens of times!

And I quote: "MfD debate: At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat I have nominated your stale userpage for deletion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)...

Put simply, it is not WP:Stale and I proved it. Yet, YOU KNEW IT WAS NOT STALE BEFORE YOU EVER NOMINATED IT!!! see: "Yes, of course you were tinkering with the draft."

Next, your assertions are full of ridiculous garbage.

I produced and added to several articles from that draft material and you know it! Articles such as these examples that came straight out of my Sandbox: U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan or United States military anti-plant research and similar.

(1)Your strong views are faulty and by your own statements are based solely upon your own stated lack of understanding, failure to read reliably cited sources, and reliance on "your advanced degrees" (Do you want the diffs and quotes?). Where I have simply asked you to simply read the sources to form your views, you have refused. I have strong views too but the difference between our views is that my views have come from the reliable sources that are cited and yours are not supported by those sources.

(2) The Golden thread is Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#U.S._weapons_of_mass_destruction_and_Japan

...which you were already also WELL AWARE OF! Talk:Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Merging_.26_splitting_proposals

Ah, "the core topic." You have made many statements of what you believe the "core topic is." You've stated your believe that it is simply the 1971 move from Okinawa to Johnson Island and nothing more but that is NOT what the reliable sources say. Is it?

Multiple "chunks of texts have been moved by me out of the draft and into their own articles PER YOUR SUGGESTION and now you are falsely claiming the material was not being condensed and was not suitable for the main space. So, how can you make such blatantly easily dis-proveable false assertions? If that is truly your honest belief then please explain what the following articles are then??

U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan or this United States military anti-plant research or any of the other linked main articles listed here? Japan and weapons of mass destruction

Do you really expect anyone to believe your assertions that you were somehow unaware of where the my sandbox material went to or where those articles that you ridiculously fought over came from Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan? No reasonable person could ever believe that you weren't very well aware that the draft material had been moved to the main space! Your assertions defy logic.

It seems to be an apparently a blatant lie rather that an simple difference of opinion or dispute over known provable facts. I say that only because you know full well the assertions are misleading, inaccurate, or untrue. That is the reason I am pointing out to other editors the misrepresentations are potentially dishonest. With these assertions, you appear not to be a credible person.

All of that "excising multiple chunks of text" that you have done in the past is a problem. Reliable sources that tie each those chunks that you deleted to Red Hat are in those references. Yet, because they do not fit with you stated (faulty) understanding, you delete them.

Case in point, you put the draft up for Mfd the draft 1.5 hours after I added a source that disproved your understanding that linked Red hat with Agent Orange. And yesterday you deleted another important cited reference from my sandbox4 that stated "The testers detonate sarin-filled 155mm artillery shells to study how the nerve agent disperses in a tropical jungle. The Pentagon confirms the "Red Oak" program in November 2002."[3]

Going back to 2011 when you bit the newcomer and deleted the original page, That reference completely disproved one of the idiotic assertions that got the article deleted in 2011- yet at the same time you assert that it is has the same problems from before...because you seem to delete any reference or text with a reference that clearly shows your lie. Please understand that was YOU that resurrected several of the problems that got it deleted. Also Note that It had problems I was not responsible for (yet I got blamed for "cooking stuff up") and you restored those very problems. But we've already talked about that didn't we and you are also very well aware of that conversation... Yet you are still making the false assertions about that draft... Do you want to try to challenge any of the highly accurate assertions I have just made about your actions?? Johnvr4 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Red Hat content

I have deleted your sandbox under G4 because it was a copy/paste recreation of an article deleted by a correct deletion discussion. Please don't recreate it again without going through deletion review. You risk being blocked for disruptive behavior if you keep this up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Waiting for a reply here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#Deletion_of_userspace_material Johnvr4 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The deleting editors concern was with only the userfied version with the edit histories and not the updated, improved, condensed, version, reedited, version with all new sources that was in my sand box and updated 1.5 hours before it was nominated for deletion. I will restore it because I am still improving it. Johnvr4 (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted your new sandbox4 under Wikipedia:CSD G4, in accordance with the MfD, User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#Deletion_of_userspace_material, and PMC's first re-deletion of your re-created sandbox. This is the second time you've promptly recreated deleted material in direct opposition to policy. Use the proper process (WP:DRV). Should you have any other questions, refer to the last lines of PMC's views at his talkpage:

"...the problems that caused the material to be deleted in mainspace are still present in the userfied copy, and my close specifically reflects that with the statement that the draft had not been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace. Your failure or refusal to understand what people have been telling you about this material for literal years is verging on "I didn't hear that" territory." ... "Please take your concerns to deletion review so that neutral editors can review the MfD closure. I am confident that they will confirm that it was correct and in-process." Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"The problems that caused the material to be deleted in the main space..." Which problem do you believe was not been addressed? Be very specific!

The main problems were that I was accused of was the interpretation of primary docs. I didn't not interpret anything from those docs. I carefully stated easily verifiable facts from those sources and six years later and there are numerous published rock-solid reliable sources that that cite those docs and state exactly what I did six years ago.

Next was the often repeated inaccurate complaint that "there is nothing in the article that connects this project (be it Project 112, Dugway PG, herbicides, nuke accidents, SE Asia, etc. allegations) with Operation Red Hat". All those subjects are directly related and reliable sources show that. So which subjects relationship to Red Hat are you challenging and which source is being disputed?

Let's look at them...Various subjects and the Red Hat military operation: environmental contamination, public deception, military defoliants,.” anti-crop agents, biological warfare research, Project 112, even covert U.S. national security sites, surveillance, military occupation and forced leasing of civilian-owned land...

Each subject has added to the controversy surrounding the history of weapons of mass destruction formerly kept on the island.

And this example: <Shimabukuro, Ryota (August 8, 2012). "U.S. military storage of Agent Orange in Okinawa". Ryukyu Shimpo. Retrieved August 18, 2017.>

Here is a direct quote from that article: "The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated."

Yet, when I updated the draft that source, only 1.5 hours later you nominated it for MfD and complain that it still has the same problems and that it was abandoned when of course by your own admission you knew full well that it was not abandoned and the information in the drafts was valuable!!

Then you did the same exact thing after the addition of this source was added confirming Red Oak/ tropical test of sarin in my Sandbox 4 that another editor stated was my synthesis.

What gives? Johnvr4 (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Reasons for deletion of your sandbox

Just to try and make it crystal clear about the reasons your drafts were deleted; I may have created some misunderstanding by using the word 'stale' in when I advised you of the MfD. If I've created such confusion I do apologise. MfD says without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD while and WP:FAKEARTICLE says "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like ...your preferred version of disputed content. It was disputed content (WP:FAKEARTICLE) that had not been sufficiently improved to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD (WP:MfD). The result was that the drafts would not have been policy-compliant in mainspace (PMC conclusions). I'm not trying to pick a scab here, I hope by writing this that I can convey exactly why the drafts were deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comment above has entirely proven my position that your entire MfD nomination was a stupid waste of time. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Recreation warning

I have deleted the version of User:Johnvr4/sandbox you re-created a little while ago, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 30. Do not recreate this. I know you disagree with the deletion decision, and you disagree with the review that decision got, but the community has spoken. If you create it again, you will be blocked from further editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So this amounts to a topic ban? Simply because you refused to read my views at DRV? That is not what the goal of Wikipedia nor how consensus is determined! Johnvr4 (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring of views at DRV closure

I came to WP:DRV for these reasons:

1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Not one single concern I raised was addressed by User:RoySmith's response :

"Johnvr4's userspace pages – Endorse. Ignoring the WP:WALLOFTEXT from the nom, there's strong consensus here to endorse the deletion of these state (sic) user drafts. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)"

Johnvr4 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Johnvr4 i have tried to help you in the past. Please take my advice, and instead of keeping this stuff in your userspace, please keep it on your desktop, or if having it online is important to you, you can store it in googledocs or any number of other places. The community has said that it isn't appropriate, and although you don't agree, fighting that clear consensus is only to your detriment and is bad for the community - as continuing to deal with this takes up yet more time, on an issue that the community has already invested a lot of time in. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thx for the note Jytdog. I know you've tried to help and we ending up disagreeing over what the brand new reliable sources present too -sort of over the same issues with Buckshot06. I think I got this but I DO need to present it better because I'm learning some of these polices as I go. I could use a lot help an experienced peer guidance with the more formal DRV and ANI processes.

It not a matter of having material online. It's a matter my improvements to WP being thwarted by one editor and of how that editor User:Buckshot06 lied about nearly everything he presented, as well as how any consensus supporting his faulty assertions was reached-- by ignoring my concerns! My dad is dying currently, I've stated at the beginning this whole thing buckshot06 presented is a bullshit waste of time and now that I and everyone else has wasted so much time on this absurdity despite early on my warnings is simply too bad. I'll see those improvements to that article trough and unfortunately there is no other way to do that without exposing Buckshot06 unwarranted harassment and near-pathological misrepresentations to other administrators. It's not an attack on him and attacking that administrator is not my purpose in challenging him. My assertions are simply recapped factual events with the diffs and proof and quotes that completely disprove nearly everything he has said in his nominations for deletion. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take the liberty of intruding here because this is not a formal discussion forum for anything. John, you say the consensus was against deletion of the material, but actually at the DRV, it was you arguing for retention of the pages, while everybody else said they should be moved off Wikipedia. Can you not see this? That was also the reason why the MfD closed as delete, and the originally AfD of June 2013 closed as delete. So the community has decided - three times - that the material is not fit for Wikipedia. Can you see this? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please DO NOT come here to be a jackass here too. The sandbox material was redeveloped and you know it. Your assertions to the contrary are purposeful lies which I have proven-easily (and will again).

Your own words thoroughly dispute all the assertions in your latest message ans I have explained to you why IAR applies to your harassment months ago. We had a content dispute. Can you see the policies you presented are utter nonsense and YOU YOURSELF argued that WP:STALE did not apply while I and EVERY SINGLE OTHER commenter except PMC said STALE was the operative rule. Can you not see that? Johnvr4 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP:FAKEARTICLE and others were the operative rule: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like ...your preferred version of disputed content." The community decided that your content was not fit for the mainspace. It got deleted, and thus the material in your userspace was your preferred version of deleted content. That's why the MfD closed as delete. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Jonvr, I get it that you are unhappy with the consensus discussion. You appealed it already, and whatever happened, that didn't succeed. At this point you really should let it go. It is not good for you or anyone else for you to persist. I won't bother you further on this; I just noticed what is going on and don't want to see you self-destruct over this. You will end up indefinitely blocked if you do, probably. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Request to block you at AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have concluded that your behaviour and actions on this site are not helpful to the overall cause of improving the encyclopedia, and thus at AN/I I have requested that you be blocked. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool, you beat me to it. I was just about to open one on you but had to run to the vet first. I'll do that now. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please take a step back

John, I really sincerely have no desire to see you blocked. I very rarely desire to see anyone blocked and you are no exception. But I don't know what else the community can do with regards to your total obsession with Red Hat-related topics. I feel like anything anyone says to you goes in one ear and right out the other and honestly, sadly, I expect this to be no different. At some point you have to accept the community's decision on things, even if you feel the community is wrong. The enormous amount of material in your deleted pages - it's just too much for an encyclopedia. It's sprawling and overwhelming in a way that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be. Multiple editors have told you this across many talk pages, as well as the AfD, MfD, DRV, and now the ANI.

Your reaction every time is to say that everything is wrong with everyone else. Every time, the nominators are misrepresenting themselves, or the participants aren't reading things correctly, or the closers in each discussion failed to correctly assess consensus. But how can that possibly be the case when in every instance, particularly the MfD and the DRV, no one spoke up to keep the material or overturn the deletion aside from you? How can every closer be interpreting every consensus wrong when in every discussion, consensus was for the material to be deleted and stay deleted? How many people have to tell you something before you acknowledge that they might not all be wrong, or liars, or maliciously trying to destroy your material?

At some point you have to take a step back and sincerely ask yourself: is everyone wrong? Or am I wrong?

Now is the time to take that step back. Voluntarily take a 6-month Red Hat topic ban. Edit something else, something totally unrelated. Anything else. Species of trees. Philosophy of the Romantic era. Classic novels. Find a pet backlog and clear it. Anything. Put your boundless energy toward moving the encyclopedia forward, please. Show the community that you really are here to build an encyclopedia and let this dead horse die. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for your concern. If you have no desire to topic ban me then why did you propose it? I do not understand. I was on a five month break already (and six months is WP:abandoned). I came to WP to add new sources to the sandbox for a four yr old (bogus) concern and 1.5 hours later it was MfDed with BS06's absurd assertions while I was at my Dad's house who is currently dying and has four months to live!! I do not have time for this absurdity but I refuse bow down to an incompetent bully nor to part with my sandbox draft material over his false assertions. I have worked too hard for years (with new sources) until it has improved to a more acceptable state with appropriate sources. If you or he takes issue, open a content dispute about it! I am only obsessed with Buckshot06 long fixation on separating me from the subject, mass deleting, topic banning, misrepresenting, frustrating and harassing me. It did occur to me I was wrong (and I'm not 100% right). I understand that being right is only half of the battle but he and I cannot collaborate because he simply will not read sources I show him. I had all the links and diffs and new sources to prove every bit of my side but you would not read it. I can't make you determine whether the apparent consensus had even the slightest merit on policy or fact or logic. I was simply forced to go to the next step. His assertions are full of horse excrement (or at least his wagon is and it is hitched up to your horse). He deleted all drafts versions and diffs and I have been sorting it all out as best I could to challenge the false assertions and total deletion as best I could. Please, just look at the differences in drafts or the new sources or how he uses them in his POV version Operation Red Hat! I'm begging you.

I am very concerned that you may be too accepting of Buckshot06s assertions without looking into whether they have even a smidgen of merit. As a friendly warning to you, his reputation will rub off. And it may smell. Please investigate that on your own and find out for yourself if I am wrong before stating on noticeboards or proposals that I am the abuser of facts/sources/noticeboards etc. and that he was correct-about anything. Half the editors at ANI are starting to get it and they've barely started digging. That's a clue to you. They've read it.Johnvr4 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@PMC, Thank you for the advice if I didn't sent you thanks already. I understand your concerns however my level of enthusiasm is irrelevant since I have actually read the sources and other editors stated very clearly that they didn't. Reviewing reliable sources and editing based on the majority and minority opinions and topics in them Cannot be a disqualifying condition of editing-- and if it were, it would obviously be totally against the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. Since you very strongly picked a side in that debate, I would like to also politely invite you to the challenge described below. Should you choose to accept the challenge, it whether it is now or in six months, if you fail, you should please agree to restore the drafts. To be clear, we are talking about the draft version that was in my sandbox or in a main page article that I had moved it to. What is the worst that could happen? You could prove me wrong, shut me up, or something might be improved? In the spirit of sportsmanship and my fondness for all things B.C. I would like to extend to you two chances to present a valid concerns that I've made something up for which no reliable source exists. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

John, you're topic banned. Your restrictions have been made extremely clear to you. End of story. It is genuinely worrying to me that despite the extenuating personal circumstances described below, including what you state is a negative effect on your own health, you immediately returned to the ORH talk page to argue some more. You are damaging your own health for the sake of arguing an internet argument that you will not win.

The community has seen that you cannot edit in this area without displaying disruptive behavior and the fact that you immediately came back to Talk:Operation Red Hat in violation of your topic ban is just confirmation that the community was correct in its assessment. IAR is not a permit to disregard the community's wishes and do whatever you please. Put the stick down and go edit something else that isn't under your topic ban. Anything. I don't care what. I'm not interested in discussing this with you any further, because it is brutally obvious that you will not listen to reason of any sort from anyone. Further to that, I will not respond to any future pings or messages from you addressed to me in any forum. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban Enforced

Johnvr4, as per the discussion at ANI you are hereby topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. You may choose to appeal this ban at WP:AN after six months time, which will be March 18, 2018. This ban will also be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi John. As RickinBaltimore previously stated, the consensus was to topic ban you from topics related to Japan or weapons, broadly construed. I wanted to go over this with you so that you don't violate your topic ban. Here is an example from the section discussing topic bans:

For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

• weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind and List of weather records, and their talk pages;
• weather-related categories such as all of the categories that are associated with Category:Weather;
• weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology and Portal:Weather;
• weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
• discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).

Now if we apply this to your topic ban of Japan and weaponry, I hope what topics are forbidden to edit or discuss is clear. This is also included on your own user page, talk page and sandboxes. Your primary edited articles like Operation Red Hat, U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan and Japan and weapons of mass destruction and other articles such as this are off-limits now. This also covers anything related to Japan, and any other kinds of weapons not discussed in those articles, which fall under the topic ban's scope. Categories, templates, WikiProjects and discussions like AFD's that have topics related to Japan or weapons, you should avoid. If someone engages you about a topic under the umbrella of your topic ban, kindly tell them you are under your editing restriction and you are unable to. If you have any questions, let me know. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

John, your edit to Talk:Operation Red Hat on 20 September violated your topic ban. Please do not make any further edits to articles related to either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, on the English wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I responded to his question before i even saw the Ban. But now that I did:

All, Our houses (4 of them) were hit by Hurricane Irma (2 of them by the eye wall as well as our agriculture business). We have not had any electricity nor running water for seven days (well pump does will not run on generator) nor at the business which did not have much wind damage but cannot survive for a week without water (even after getting 18 inches of it all at once). It's been in the 90F+ range without relief and by some miracle our power came back after exactly one week and internet was restored today the 9th day). My brother and I almost got into a pre-hurricane duel. I just got back from evacuating to assist my dad who now may have only 2 months to live and we had to call an ambulance for him a few days ago. Upon my return I just was informed that cat was killed by two dogs and was found in my lake and buried by neighbors and now I have to destroy two dogs if animal control doesn't do it because they once tried to attack me and i almost had to shoot them with 911 on the phone when I chased them away and straight at a small child I did not know was there. My new expensive sea wall collapsed and the lake is closed because it got got hundreds thousands of gallons of raw sewage from the the storm due to the power being out at the pump stations. My Mom needs emergency hip replacement surgery tomorrow AM (wed) and hasn't walked in a week. I missed my grandmother's 94 birthday while I was evacuated. I had to wait 3 hours in lines to buy $20 max ration of gas that took a 45min drive just to find all in order to run a generator for the next 8 hours. I noticed the 6-month ban as soon as I turned on my computer and the hounding and ban is affecting my health.

Moe, thank you for attempting to explain a topic ban. I do not understand the reason for the the topic ban because User:buckshot06 and User:Nick-Ds' concerns and assertions raised there were 100% meritless. The were no valid reasons presented to support it, there was no evidence of it, and simple votes do not count. I was able to more that prove my position with diffs and proof and WP policy. I have already not been editing for about six months, and the only edits I've made by (adding two sources) only utterly disproved both yours and Buckshot06 publicly stated faulty assertions.

Do I have questions? Yes I do. You of all editors should know that in your own words at AfD you couldn't even acknowledge the subject of Red Hat is about sarin and Japan and now you are coming here to my talk page and trying to explain to me how these are subjects that I'm banned from?

I'm not sure how well you understand the concept of irony but allow me quote you in responding to something so obvious that it doesn't even need a damn source:

.."Sarin was stored on Okinawa under Project Red Hat"? By your own admission in the previous statement about Okinawa being unmentioned, how is this statement even possible? There is no mention of Okinawa in the reference, so this is wrong... Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [4]

Do you not understand that there has never-ever, ever been one reliable source published in the entire history of the world that could remotely support your absurd concern with that statement? ...or any of the others!?!

This whole thing is beyond stupid Moe. I really hope that irony is not lost on you or anyone else. You personally don't seem to be the ringleader but I am being hounded by editors that have zero idea what the subject is--which comes directly from our reliable sources-- and continue to bold face lie in discussion boards all which I have easily proven to be false. You ARE one of of those editors Moe. There is not a single example that an editor could point to as evidence to support the thoroughly idiotic assertions made about me or that draft in those discussions. Please note that both Buckshot06 as well as Nick-D and others asserted numerous times a concern that the there was no common thread to my editing and the result of a such a wide topic ban regarding "Japan" and "Weapons" emanating from such assertions of no common thread is literally calling the sky green.

Frankly, I do not care if there is WP consensus for an absurdity (like whether the earth's sky is green). I would likely continue to state it is blue and rub the reliable sources that support it into any editors faces that couldn't (much like I have had to do with you, Buckshot06 and Nick-D) and will likely have to do that full time in six months given your past concerns and assertions. It's not to make a WP:POINT I just want the unwarranted hounding to stop. Or, during the next six months perhaps I can see what nonsense concerns that you have been expressing or content you've been inserting.

The continuing purposeful idiotic lies from these same editors have been disproved. Do you honestly dispute any of this? Can you point me to even one example that supports any of your concerns? Please never come back to this talk page if you can't because you and those two have been utterly discredited every time you've come anywhere to discuss this issue.

In response to Buckshot's WP:Hounding and in the spirit of Ignoring all rules |diff I will continue improvements to WP where needed.

Now, If you can't find an untruth in MY editing where a source cannot be found to support it would you three (or more) be willing agree to apologize to me and then stay far far away from me and impose a topic ban on yourselves? Simple mix ups do not counts as that content has been edited a lot. You get a chance to direct me to something you that you think is dubious. I will show you a reliable source (or three) and when that is done then each of you (or myself) will agree make NO Edits to WIKIPEDIA for six months.

Hear this, what you and User:Buckshot06 and User:Nick-D all have in common is that you have each stated your REFUSALS TO LOOK AT THE DAMNED SOURCES.

This is a virtual glove slap across your face if you choose to accept it User:Moe Epsilon, User:Nick-D, User:Buckshot06 and any other editor who wants to continue to make untrue assertions about me where they have been asked but were unable to support it.

These are your words Moe: "

Like I said, this is from one reference and there have been 173 references since you've began editing it. Please don't make me go through all of them and see what else you cooked up in your spare time...Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to your Personal attack on me when I was new, I told you back then that "What you might think is synthesis is possibly not correctly sourced."

Can you support even one of the assertions you've made? I challenge you to find anything that you think supports yours, BuckShot06's, or Nick-D's assertions in my sandbox draft or a page I've edited. You've accused me of cooking stuff up when you three are the chefs in the kitchen right now standing in front of the oven with a recipe book as we speak!

So, here you have the chance to try to prove anything you said in AfD had merit. Now, I'm challenging each of you to test reliable sources vs your stupid and offensive assertions. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

John, your further edit to Talk:Operation Red Hat today violated your topic ban for the second time. I have reported you to AN/I at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_topic_ban_by_User:Johnvr4. Please do not make any further edits to articles related to either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, on the English wikipedia.

In regard to your statements above about reliable sources, you may wish to closely consider whether or not the documents that you're referring to are WP:PRIMARY sources. We are not allowed to use primary sources for anything but recording uncontroversial statements of fact; any interpretation from those primary sources is disallowed. To do that kind of thing one needs secondary or tertiary sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

John, there was a solid, in fact unanimous, consensus (read this link) among the editors who engaged in the ANI discussion that you were to be topic banned as summarised by RickinBaltimore above. You do not get to violate a consensus with IAR as your "get out of jail free" card. Simply because you disagree with the consensus does not mean you get to yell "IAR!" and everyone will just shrug and say "oh well, he involved IAR, best let him get on with it". If you continue along this line, you will be blocked (not by me, I'm not an admin). As a final note, while I know that you want to be debate the content, please do not do so in reply to my comment. That would be a (third) direct violation of your topic ban and a guarantee to get you blocked. Outside of that, then please feel free to ping me. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 181 days for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

When consensus holds that your edits are not improving the encyclopedia, and when you've been banned from making such edits, invoking IAR is not a basis for doing the edits in question. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

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:

Mea culpa: I felt the talk page edit for which I was apparently blocked was necessary. As I’ve explained, the edit was to prevent involved editors from forever deleting the pages edit history that contains the creation of the page and attribution for the editors that edited the content. Edits prior to any edits that I submitted to it are missing. These histories are apparently lost in violation of our policies and pillars. The editor who blocked me stated that "When consensus holds that your edits are not improving the encyclopedia, and when you've been banned from making such edits, invoking IAR is not a basis for doing the edits in question."

The hiding all diffs prior to my editing on that subject would show that questionable material regarding text about night operations and “of cooking up stuff in my spare time” that individual editors accused me of submitting at AfD is now concealed as well as the number of times and reasons that the page was locked, revived, deleted and revived again by the involved editor. Based upon unfounded assertions of long involved editors, there is now a negative community consensus (such as that I interpret primary sources or that "I cook stuff up in my spare time") associated with my edits which the missing history would reveal I did not submit.

I have to wonder how many times the page has been resurrected by that editor or whether anyone can tell? I wonder why that information is not reflected anywhere in the pages history. Our community has allowed perhaps even encouraged those actions by not looking at the facts or patterns of behavior that I described and topic banning me without merit. I employed IAR to prevent an even larger disruption that is described in policy because it appears to me to be absolutely against one of our community’s pillars.

No small group of involved editors can justify that there is consensus to overrule a policy nor one of our pillars. This apparently has been done numerous times to my submissions by the same editor. The issues with that page history make it impossible to discuss my situation with other involved editors with the diffs and proof that are required in such discussion. The pages history would vindicate me against further false accusations by these same editors and show that specific problems and concerns for which I was blamed that existed at AfD had been corrected prior to MfD and more importantly, that I was not the editor responsible for putting them there in the first place as has been incorrectly asserted by these editors at AfD and after.

That is why I purposely ignored the Ban.

In my view, necessity under the common law (the established law where I live) is very similar to WP:IAR. It doesn’t block an accusation nor an arrest or imprisonment. It is never a “get out of jail free card”. However, necessity defenses prevent any conviction and punishment whenever the situation was not caused by a defendant, they could not accomplish the same objective using a less offensive alternative available to them, and the problem sought to be avoided was more heinous than the unlawful act perpetrated to avoid it.

My understanding

The community agrees that myself and a limited number of editors need to work together but are having a content dispute. Certain involved editors have made claims about content but have thwarted any and all procedures to rectify them. Rather that adhering to established WP policy that could determine consensus, they have raised dubious concerns and then moved every content discussion into a forum that is not set up to determine the validity of content. Consensus of the community is that Content issues should NOT be raised at ANI for the very reasons I have described.

The simple fact is that no editor was able to provide a single example of my alleged edits that were shown to not improve WP. The assertions come from a concerned editor that as I will discuss below who knew the allegations were baseless, and unfounded. These concerns were disputed by the numerous other editors at ANI who reviewed them and who provided well-founded examples (with links) to support the exact opposite opinion.

To restate, not one example has been presented of any edits that I made did not improve Wikipedia.

The community has agreed that determining consensus requires adherence to all WP policies -each of which already have community consensus. Consensus cannot be reached by ignoring our policies. Ignoring WP policy is the definition of Local consensus.

It is impossible to discuss the my WP Block without discussing the (overly broad) Topic Ban (of “Weapons” and “Japan”).

• I understand that I was blocked because I made a 2nd talk page edit during a ban that purposefully ignored two editors that I have shown with specific diffs to have a history of unfounded personal attacks against me and had either less than honest or had purposefully misled the community as described on my talk page

The first edit to that talk page was prior to me knowing about the ban. My second edit explained my first and a third edit explained my second.

What I do not understand

• I am not sure what lesson I am supposed to be learning by my block nor what parts of deleted content are in dispute. That leaves me with no idea of exactly what the community expects me to improve and no way to reassure other editors that my edits won't be problematic.

• I do not understand why I was topic banned- Other than perhaps restoring my sandbox material which was seemingly deleted without application of policy and refusing to listen to certain editors who battled over content without discussion and will not review our sources.

• I do not understand how or why my sandbox draft was deleted seemingly against all WP policy-other than adding new sources reliable to support it 1.5 hours prior to nomination.

• I do not understand how, against all Wikipedia policy, a content dispute can be discussed or resolved without ever discussing that specific content- which has not been done to my knowledge even once- and each time it comes up instead is misrepresented and resolved exclusively in forums that never (or rarely ever) looks at content.

• I do not understand how high quality policy-based arguments with quotes and diffs and examples can be ignored while baseless assertions by one editor can be seconded by other editors that seem too lazy to review them giving merit to obviously baseless assertions that lack the slightest evidence to support or verify it. Each of these issues could be easily dismissed by the briefest view of the edits, diffs, sources, or policies in question at any point. I’ve waited for the larger community to realize what is going with the other editor and decide on what needs to be done but that does not seem to be happening.

Why I do not understand

At MfD, the nominator falsely claimed that my draft material was

1. “my preferred version of disputed content,"
2. that I had not condensed the material, and
3. that no immediate article with the material seemed likely.

However, each one of those assertions was disproved in later discussions and both involved editors knew very well (here as one example) that the sandbox material had been condensed by 1/3 and was being condensed by another 1/3 before it was deleted. Nevertheless, they and others continued to make the assertion that it had not been condensed.

• The MfD closer ignored WP policy with a belief that that a sandbox must be to be main space article policy compliant (which it does not), she invented a non-existent time component that's inconsistent with policy (or a new WP policy), and purposefully ignored each of policy issues I raised in MfD and on her talk page: WP:UD, WP:STALE, WP:ABANDONED, WP:FAKEARTICLE. The community was misled when she said that no policy argument was raised at MfD to retain it despite the indisputable fact each policy is clearly mentioned and/or quoted by me there and it is as plain as day for any editor to read: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat#Userpage_drafts_of_Operation_Red_Hat (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRed Hat)

In closing she said that, “No policy argument has been raised for keeping this. Info was rightly deleted at AfD years ago as it is a huge mess of information unrelated to the actual topic, and has never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace. We're not a webhost for deleted content so it's time for this to go.” ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that not one of the concerns raised at MfD actually applied to or was directed at my sandbox draft-which had been reedited and condensed into new articles over the last six months to comply with the concerns of the nominating editor!

User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos/Archive_11#Deletion_of_userspace_material “I agree with the nominator and the other two participants that the problems that caused the material to be deleted in mainspace are still present in the userfied copy, and my close specifically reflects that with the statement that the draft had not been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace.” PMC♠ (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2017

As you can see above, the closing editor spoke ONLY of the Userfied copy however, she deleted BOTH the userfied Copy AND my updated sandbox draft. Then she would not clarify any of the perceptions she had about my sandbox draft (contrary to all evidence) in order for me to go forward as her concerns as were applied to my sandbox draft made no sense.

• The MfD closing editor said I should go to deletion review- which I did. However, all of the policy concerns I raised at Deletion Review were also purposefully ignored (the closer went out of their way to close it without reading it and decided that I should not be allowed to fix an errant faulty insertion). There was no hint that the review of the deletion was closed “to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal was applied consistently and fairly.” It was apparently closed out of sheer laziness:

Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts “Ignoring the WP:WALLOFTEXT from the nom, there's strong consensus here to endorse the deletion of these stale user drafts. – -- RoySmith (talk) August_30”

It appears that the closer at Deletion Review commented that both drafts were deleted under STALE despite the diffs that showed that My sandbox had been recently edited only 1.5 hours prior to its nomination for deletion as stale or any other application of WP policy – a fact which no editor can argue against!

Quality arguments that are put forth in order to determine consensus- cannot be ignored- which is the reason I feel that we are here. As shown, my Sandbox was edited with additional sources only 1.5 hours before it was was nominated at MfD as WP:STALE. I am not sure which part of the WP:STALE WP policy allows the complete deletion of my sandbox with 170 references without any discussion of content. MfD after a 5 month break and only 1.5 hours after the last edit that improved it with additional sources. I am unsure why I am sanctioned for editing in my sandbox or talk page. The deletion of my sandbox without any ability for me to edit the material was effectively a topic ban after MfD. I see no valid explanation of how that can happen yet that is precisely how my sandbox draft was deleted, repeatedly. MfD looked to be simply a vote or WP:VAGUEWAVE of mostly involved editors.

Therefore, I asked for a review of the MfD determination for specific reasons and every single one of those quality policy arguments (yes, the format was all off) were purposefully ignored by the closer. That is also the reason I ignored the Mfd deletion of my sandbox which I can assume was one reason for the ban (I am unclear how that vote for a ban happened when my power was out for a week that ignored all of the quality arguments in opposition to it.)

The issue to be resolved

I was nominated for the ban by an editor trying resolve really absurd content issues that he cannot overcome in any other way.

There was a content dispute with a deeply involved nominating editor who uses vague policy waves and an utter refusal to review sources to justify battleground editing and has given up on BRD. He removes sourced content to insert his POV. I have had a lot of difficulty with this behavior and it has generated tons of unnecessary discussion to try and fix. The behavior can be described as tendentious editing as shown below.

Instead, my edits are deleted and challenged and endless discussion and countless meritless concerns materialize from thin air followed by the editors refusal to participate in further discussion while he goes to battle over that one word that is clearly present in the source to everyone but him. This has made it impossible to listen to or work with him.

I’ve re-added disputed text based on discussions under [unexplained removal of sourced content] but the editor has even removed the source entirely and continues to remove the sourced text. This has resulted in an apparent Edit war based solely upon his entirely faulty assertions that these words are not in our sources.

There may some type of a mental illness at work here. The disruption on this page over six months is 100% being caused by the involved editor who nominated my submissions for deletion and then nominated to block me.

• The community needs to understand that No editor can legitimately argue that Camp SCHWAB is not in that source!’’

From that source (It's from Japan Times- ): “The document shows that the area off the U.S. Marine Corps’ Camp Schwab in the Henoko district on the east coast of Nago was most suitable for the offshore base, taking into account Okinawa’s geography and weather conditions. It suggested building an offshore landfill facility with a 3,000-meter runway, a large military port and an integrated ammunition bunker capable of storing nuclear weapons.” Discussion: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Henoko.2F_Schwab.2F_Hansen.2F_nuke_depot.2F_and_relocation_plan

• HE verifies that THIS IS THE ROOT OF OUR PROBLEM:

Here the involved editor exclaims with asterisks and double exclamation points, “*The Sources Do Not State!!*” and makes edits to remove the sourced text.

“Neither mentions the words 'Camp Schwab'. We run with WP:V here, and I am *strictly* paring you back to the details mentioned in the sources you cite. You appear to have a tendency to add material that isn't actually in the cited sources -- evident all the way back to the 2013 deletion debate. If you're going to add primary-source material so heavily, you need to stick quite closely to the sources and not infer or WP:SYNTH from them. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)”

07:05, 19 March 2017 (b) new secret depot sentences not sourced [5]

18:53, 9 April 2017 remove discussions about base moves long after nuclear weapons removed [6]

• There are many more interactions just like that one and I am just scratching the surface here…

Any editor can that look at U.S. Nuclear weapons in Japan PAGE HISTORY to see how much sourced content being deleted by that editor and every bit of it seems to be done with dubious reasoning.

Our dispute(s) seemed to mostly resolve around A source that I have asked repeatedly to be reviewed by that editor. The editor refuses to review the sources and battles over the content.

• Concerning an incident at a Pacific base involving an F-100 “interceptor” and the impact of incident on the removal of nuclear weapons from Asia.

ANY other WP editor can easily verify this information or the presence of a single word in that source on page 6-7 in less than 10 seconds. http://www.nukestrat.com/us/CDI_BrokenArrowMonitor1981.pdf

Yet that editor time after time would refused to look once at the source!

No editor can legitimately argue that the Pacific base incident (possibly Okinawa) is not verifiable on pages 6-7 in that source!’’

Discussion:Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Original_research.3F_.2F_synthesis.3F_removed.2C_failure_to_WP:BRD.3F discussion He will not discuss his concern except to tell me to quit flogging a dead horse! the pages history 03:44, 20 September 2017 -remove incident that is not proven to have occurred in Okinawa [7]

10:46, 7 August 2017 removal of incident that is not proven to be associated with Okinawa - WP:V [8]

04:14, 7 April 2017 considering WP:V, this para cannot be included, at least in this form [9]

05:00, 20 March 2017 remove incident that cannot be definitively linked to Okinawa [10]

07:06, 19 March 2017 should not have this here if it's not clearly re Okinawa [11]

07:10, 18 March 2017 remove F-100 incident; no clear evidence was on Okinawa; [12]

• Note the word Interceptor on page 7 of the source.

No editor can legitimately argue that the word INTERCEPTOR is not in that source!’’

17:22, 19 March 2017 remove text about nuclear-armed interceptors, which does not appear to be cited; remove F-100 incident which cannot be conclusively linked to Okinawa); [13]

07:05, 19 March 2017 air defence interceptors not sourced [14]

07:20, 18 March 2017 remove this sentence; can't find 'air defense interceptors' in any of the refs [15]

• This was another meritless content dispute that went on and on simply because he refused to review the sources followed by a dispute over the "nuclear capable missile (Genie)", then "Alert", then "Naha AFB", etc. etc. Discussion: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie (and [16])

17:16, 18 March 2017 neither source mentions Genie missiles [17] etc.

• That went next into a dispute over a meritless concern about a terrorist threat vs, the non disclosure policy mentioned in the source which the involved editor misquoted and did not read.

discussed here

• At that point, I was threatened with ANI action after presenting two in disputable quotes from our source that directly contradicted the editor’s terrorist threat concerns. Yet, again that editor refused to further review our source. Two quotes:

“The motivation behind the NCND was the increasing need to fend off queries from foreign governments – rather than protecting against terrorists and Soviet military planning, as was later claimed by U.S. officials. The new policy soon became an important factor in the U.S approach to the security treaty negotiations with Japan." and

"Beyond the willingness of the Japanese and U.S. governments to “turn a blind eye” to the violation of Japan’s nuclear ban, it was the Neither Confirm Nor Deny policy that more than anything made the deceit possible. While officially intended to protect the ship against terrorists and complicate enemy military planning, the policy really served as a smoke-screen under which U.S. Navy warships could get access to foreign ports regardless of the nuclear policy of the host country.

Given those quotes, No editor can legitimately argue that a mid-1970s terror threat report was the purpose of the 1950 NCND policy from that source! (Nor can the perceived threat in a 1974 report be tied to the removal from Okinawa which was planned around 1969 and executed by 1973)’’

• In response to the correction of that editor over that content, he threatened me with ANI action to sanction me (now realized). Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV (and [18])

“When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)”

• I do not feel that it would be possible for any WP editor to present any quality argument to dispute my well-evidenced assertions. Therefore, why would any administrator blindly accept any of that editors assertions at MfD or ANI or anywhere else at face value?

If my editing was so problematic then then has not one single example of any of my edits containing WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES interpretation, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, as alleged at MfD or ANI and why is that editor the only one removing well-sourced content that I added to the main space? (I think I've seen once case where an editor asked for a better sourced)

Discussion

What does one editor do when an administrators or a group of administrators will not read the source and wants to ridiculously edit war over solidly verified content and turn what should be a kindergarten level content dispute into an ANI concern about my behavior?

I have been temporarily blocked in the past. Each time this happens, no one figures out until long after I’m blamed and sanctioned that I was in fact correct. This was the case with my first block where a tight group of editors were actively abusing a source and repeatedly reinserted text over a period of years that came directly from a conspiracy web site [19]. They also misrepresented that source by ignoring text about the 1990s origin in order to remove it at RSN [20]. That happened. No editor can argue that was not the case. I wear the experience proudly should any editor want to look at it again. I know I’m right about this content (and the presence of a single word) being in the source and there is simply no amount arguments that can ever surmount it. I know ANY editor can look at and see that I’m right but to date, they will not do it and those involved are not willing to further embarrass themselves in a RfC or content discussion. For this, I get blocked because some editors made baseless assertions that are believed by lots of other editors without the slightest glance at the source, diff, quote, evidence, etc or anything else.

• That we have a content dispute is an insurmountable argument. That these disputes are disruptive to WP is unanimous. That opposing editors cannot read the source nor seem to come up with a single valid concern that has enough merit for ANY of the next steps in dispute resolution simply because he will not acknowledge whether plain text words appear in our sources is frustrating any possible improvements. This happens time and time again and I am powerless to stop it.

• Each and every time content is challenged for dubious reasoning or needs to be discussed, the conversation is always moved to a forum that was never intended to resolve content problems.

“In forums such as ANI content is not usually reviewed and is typically ignored from discussion.” [Which I didn’t know until now...]

• Therefore, content assertions and the counter arguments discussed there are never reviewed by administrators. These forums require quotes and diffs and policies which I provided to counter unfounded arguments that were known to be false when they were first raised and would be proven false if the content was ever once reviewed. However, my sandbox had already been deleted at that point (after MfD) which made it impossible to see for a non-administrator like me to provide diffs. the specific merits or concerns of sourced content is never reviewed prior to deletion and meritless conduct concerns are brought up that could be easily disproved by reviewing content. its a Catch-22 and the end result is that application of WP policy fails and the quality of arguments for deletion or retention is skipped entirely.

I am now topic banned and cannot present nor discuss a single issue!

It is past the proper time for other administrators to review my valid arguments, and the assertions with evidence and diffs. Ignoring them or validating an editors meritless concerns under a guise of consensus will be challenged per WP policy whether it is now or in six months!

• Administrators were asked to do these things but didn’t:

1. determine to what extent additional subject knowledge may be necessary to resolve the dispute.

1. Identify the key participants in an article or topic area.

1. Examine accusations that are being made. It is particularly important that any accusations be accompanied with evidence. Review the diffs to ensure that they back up the accusations.

1. Examine the situation in detail so as to build a complete picture. Just looking at a few diffs may not give sufficient context to understand the editing environment that led to the accusations. A superficial view of the situation may also play into the hands of those who bait others into lashing out.

1. Check contribution histories.

1. Identify Tag-team editors.

1. Determine whether administrator action is required.

Wikipedia Policy says my edits are not disruptive but his seem to be. “While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view.”

• It is content that needs to be discussed to resolve disputes
• The editor complaining that my edits are problematic or fail verification does not appear to be competent enough to make such assertions. THAT is the root of the problem.
• These editors have deleted my userspace material (with both the userfied version and my recent sandbox updates) and with it any hope of providing diffs in discussion because all traces of what was removed are deleted and not visible to me.

• The block and topic ban should be lifted because they never should have been applied.
• My sandbox draft should be restored because it was deleted without the slightest merit. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request is 4,300 words long. That's absolutely ludicrous and totally inappropriate. It's one to two orders of magnitude too long. You are blocked for violating your topic ban. Show you did not violate your topic ban. Everything else is irrelevant. In particular, this is not the place to argue your topic ban should never have been placed. In particular, this is not the place to discuss the actions of others. The only thing relevant here is whether or not you violated your topic ban. Yamla (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

• non admin comment--Hi, John, I would sincerely request you to read through WP:NOTTHEM.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 19:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric I understand that ignoring of WP:NOTTHEM is pretty bad form. In this case, it is unavoidable. I am blocked because of what this editor did to me. I think I've proven that above. Any editor who would to point to WP:NOTTHEM in this case please needs to look at the diffs of edits where sources were ignored for the last six months and then tell me the problem is "not them". It clearly is them. No one can argue it isn't them in the face of those diffs.

I feel that all actions initiated by User:Buckshot06 should be ignored. I;ve provided indisputable evidence he is incompetent to make the assertions that led to my block and I should ignore everything that the editor has ever said to me or about me. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Note in addition to my decline, above, I have also verified that Johnvr4 did indeed violate his topic ban. Furthermore, he sited WP:IAR, so knew perfectly well he was violating the topic ban. A six month ban is entirely appropriate here and is, in my opinion, the best (that is, the shortest) this user can hope for. --Yamla (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Please repair the format of my previous highly relevant request so It can at least be read. That is not the condition I left it in.

This is visible at this version of your page. The formatting of your unblock request did not work with the unblock-decline template. --Yamla (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@YamlaThank you for fixing the format above! Johnvr4 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla Can you verify the faulty reasoning that led to my topic ban in light of the diffs, quotes, and source information that I provided above? Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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:

Mea culpa: I felt the talk page edit for which I was apparently blocked was necessary. As I’ve explained, the edit was to prevent involved editors from forever deleting the pages edit history that contains the creation of the page and attribution for the editors that edited the content. Edits prior to any edits that I submitted to it are missing. These histories are apparently lost in violation of our policies and pillars and should not be ignored.

The editor who blocked me stated that "When consensus holds that your edits are not improving the encyclopedia, and when you've been banned from making such edits, invoking IAR is not a basis for doing the edits in question."

The hiding all diffs prior to my editing on that subject would show that questionable material regarding text about night operations and “of cooking up stuff in my spare time” that individual editors accused me of submitting at AfD is now concealed as well as the number of times and reasons that the page was locked, revived, deleted and revived again by the involved editor.

Based upon unfounded assertions of long involved editors, there is now a negative community consensus (such as that I interpret primary sources or that "I cook stuff up in my spare time") associated with my edits which the missing history would reveal I did not submit. Our community has allowed perhaps even encouraged those actions by not looking at the facts or patterns of behavior that I described and topic banning me without merit.

I employed IAR to prevent an even larger disruption that is described in policy because it appears to me to be absolutely against one of our community’s pillars. No small group of involved editors can justify that there is consensus to overrule a policy nor one of our pillars.

This apparently has been done numerous times to my submissions by the same editor. The issues with that page history make it impossible to discuss my situation with other involved editors with the diffs and proof that are required in such discussion. The pages history would vindicate me against further false accusations by these same editors and show that specific problems and concerns for which I was blamed that existed at AfD had been corrected prior to MfD and more importantly, that I was not the editor responsible for putting them there in the first place as has been incorrectly asserted by these editors at AfD and after. The restoration is only opposed by the involved editor above and the editor who accused me of cooking stuff up in my spare time and I responded to them in apparent violation of an unwarranted topic ban. It is impossible to discuss the Block without discussing the topic ban and the deletion of my sandbox. I am really tired of Lazy editors using TLDR and Wall of text excuses to ignore quality arguments. I often ignore decisions made where arguments are ignored.

That is why I purposely ignored the Ban. In my view, necessity under the common law (the established law where I live) is very similar to WP:IAR. It doesn’t block an accusation nor an arrest or imprisonment. It is never a “get out of jail free card”. However, necessity defenses prevent any conviction and punishment whenever the situation was not caused by a defendant, they could not accomplish the same objective using a less offensive alternative available to them, and the problem sought to be avoided was more heinous than the unlawful act perpetrated to avoid it. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification: Years ago at AfD, The "stuff" I allegedly "cooked up in my spare time" was related to sourcing on "Red Oak". The missing page history I mentioned above was contained in the userfied copy that was deleted at MfD. MfD happened 1.5 hours after adding a reliable "Red Oak" source to my sandbox draft. A topic ban came from ANI. I was taken to ANI by the editor who was involved with me in a highly ridiculous content dispute. These issues are highly relevant for an administrator to review. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We all understand that you felt those edits were necessary. If you hadn't thought them necessary, you wouldn't have made them. However, the community has found that your edits regarding those topics are so problematic that you were banned from those topics. You can, of course, disagree with the community on the quality of your edits, but you don't get to ignore that decision. Your rationale here makes it exceedingly likely that you would continue to violate your topic ban if you were unblocked. Thus the block should remain in place to enforce the topic ban. Huon (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

@Huon (or Beyond My Ken, or Nyttend, or RickinBaltimore), Consensus is in policy, and quality arguments are given merit-not simple votes, nor ad hominem arguments, nor vagewaves at our policies. I felt there was a disruption to WP that was larger than my ban. I do not intend to argue for anything other than removal of block and topic the ban and restoration of my sandbox prior to six months. I do not feel that I should need to wait six months to appeal. Can you help me determine which of my edits you felt the community found fault with? Which policy did I break with addition of the two sources to my sandbox that ended in a topic ban and 6 month block? I am still very unclear on all of it and I'm not not at all sure where to go to clarify it. I made the quality argument above and in in my last unblock request that the community did not find fault with any of my edits. That quality argument was also put forth at ANI by others such as Mr rnddude and no recent incriminating edits that I made or NOTHERE evidence have been submitted for community review to date.

The cause of my problems stem from one editor with a demonstrated incompetence to see one word in a source. This was looked at by and confirmed at ANI (again by Mr rnddude) and there is/was no amount of further commenting or community consensus that can possibly overcome that well-founded observation. The argument is airtight and it simply is insurmountable by anyone who looks at those diffs. There is a content dispute with one editor who has demonstrated that he simply can't verify a single word in a reliable source, who will not hesitate to go to war over and over again. It is the same editor involved in resurrecting the page, the same editor whose concerns I have been trying to alleviate for over 6 months, the same editor who nominated my draft for deletion, the same editor who nominated me for a block, and the same editor who brought me forth for a ban after my last edit, the same editor hounding me and the same editor who states that this issue still needs to be resolved.

I agree with him the issue needs to be resolved but policy consensus is that ANI is not the place to go to resolve it and quality arguments stating that were out forth there and no counter argument was put forth to challenge it. I don't believe that A block or topic ban is resolution regarding the content. The content problems remain. I don't believe a single member of the community would agree with that editor given the section above titled, The issue to be resolved submitted in my previous unblock request. There is a plethora of diffs that demonstrate the problem of not looking at the source is THE ISSUE that the community cannot ignore or deny is the root of our content dispute problem. The words are verifiable in the cited source and no arguments by an infinite numbers of editors can ever overcome the merit of the argument stating that simple fact. The words are in the sources. If there was such an editor out there who contests that view, I would say it is very likely strong proof they are incompetent too. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I checked the deleted edits and the page history of Operation Red Hat. There is no significant misattribution. In particular, no edits contributing to the current content are missing, and no content is attributed to Johnvr4 that isn't his. Huon (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's wise for me to comment further here or not, whether I'm simply adding fuel to the fire. But Johnvr4 has again demonstrated he's missed the point when he attacks me over and over for missing the word 'interceptor' in p6-7 of the CDI source. The central problem with my missing that word being a problem is that he was trying to use that source to say 'nuclear-armed interceptors stood ready to scramble at Okinawa' or some such. First, when CDI mentions the word interceptor, it's their commentary, not in the US DOD source which is the new evidence that Defense Monitor was breaking. But the real problem with Johnvr4's reasoning chain here is that the base in question is not mentioned - which is the reason I and one or two other editors continually removed it from an article focused on Japan. CDI rightly says that the F-100 Super Sabres were located at the time not just in Japan, but in Thailand, Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea.

Furthermore, the CDI commentary only says 'could carry nuclear-armed missiles', which Johnvr4 wanted to use as a reference supporting *did* carry nuclear-armed missiles. The CDI source says that the interceptors 'could' carry nuclear-armed AAMs. Johnvr4's phrasing in the article has always been along the lines of 'nuclear-armed interceptors *stood* ready for scrambling' -- implying that they *did* carry the weapons. As I told him, "[Y]ou need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa" and that DOD extract on page 6-7 of the CDI source simply didn't support that fact.

I remain concerned, along with many other editors, about the distortions of sources Johnvr4 will try to engage in to try to prove his point, and that is why I believe the topic ban should stay in place. I would also note that his edits on other topics, as noted by MoeEpsilion, have resulted in "in content disputes as well and having content disputes this frequently is toxic". He was blocked in February 2017 over his interactions at Beacham Theater. I do not believe he is helpful here as an editor. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Huon Thank you!! That part of the issue appears to be resolved (thanks to my violation??)! I'm not at all sure when exactly that was done as my power and internet was out for an extended time during that request and I responded the momoent it was restored. I am glad that the community saw the threat to our pillars that was created by that editor and promptly resolved it. However, the number of time the page has been locked, deleted, and recreated by that involved editor is still missing.

As any editor can now see after the edit history restoration, I did not submit the text indicating "Most of the operation took place at night" raised by an IP editor which was an item that User:Moe Epsilon stated that I "cooked up in my spare time". The other thing he accused of "cooking up" was sourcing for "Red Oak" for which I added a reliable source 1.5 hours before Bucksoht06 nominated that draft for MfD.

@Buckshot06: WP:LISTEN I don't want you to further interact with me AT ALL. You tried explain all of your nonsense at the article talk page and then stopped discussion. You don't try to explain any of the other times you said a word was not in a source and did not hesitate to battle over it. Please go right ahead and TRY to explain each one of those ridiculous edits too.

I still want you to look at the damned sources and explain your the remainder of your WP:TE to the community. But you should do that at ANI (which is where you are headed again) and not here on my talk page. User:Nick-D should do the same thing and explain to the community why he didn't stop you when he was alerted in every one of those cases and instead encouraged you to battle me and then joined in with you at Mfd and ANI when you did it! Moe Epsilon should do the same and so should every editor who took your side in your edit battling and who blamed your Tendentious editing behavior on me in this astounding and ABSURD level of baseless edit warring.

This needs to be said again despite the fact that I am the one currently blocked and topic banned [21] where I quoted YOU Quote:

I warned you repeatedly about reading and verifying our sources! Spectacularly, in your effort to correct me, you have only succeeded at insulting yourself. You raised the concern of MY POV and justified your own utterly faulty and repetitive edits citing your "strong views" and "advanced degrees". "And I have advanced degrees, so would be generally expected to be able to follow complex arguments." You were expected simply to Read the source and were asked to do that repeatedly! You apparently were wholly unable to follow that complexity and instead you posted a ridiculous message to my talk page (which I deleted). Given your repeated bogus assertions in using that source, the edit to my talk page appeared to be an exercise in absurdity which I wanted zero part of. If you took my reply to Nick-D as some personal attack then you should never had used that fact to support your own POV and failure to read our sources. Or respond. Or discuss. Or follow. Or understand. Would you agree that you abused that source, then refused to read it further for verification and that responding to your message on my talk page would just be a waste of my time? (for emphasis): "Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid. User:Nick-D, would you disagree? ... OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!! " quoting [4] You have destroyed your own credibility all by yourself. The credibility destroying editing behavior is not all contained entirely in those alleged Terrorist threat links above either. Here is another example where simply verifying a source was entirely too complex for you... which resulted in yet another edit war and me having to hold your hand and then spoon feed you the sources that you claimed you had already reviewed- and which were already all over WP!! see: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan# Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie Johnvr4 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have supplied several repetitive edits by Buckshot06 to prove his ABSURD reasoning. My assertions are INDISPUTABLE and His explanations (of only one of the super highly questionable edits) fall utterly flat. Again, I see no reason why he and his extreme efforts to muzzle me should not be ignored. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Listen John. I've held my temper, biting back unsaid, nasty comments such as the ones you hand out daily, trying to remain professional, for literally *years* with you. Then I specifically try to address (one of the many) concerns I have with your distortion of sources - and instead of engaging me, you merely respond with vituperative personal attacks. If you continue to use your talkpage to launch WP:Personal Attacks on people, the next thing that will happen is that your talkpage use will be revoked. Do not make personal attacks!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I rather do not think continuing this discussion is helpful. Since Johnvr4 is topic-banned you're practically goading him into violating his ban.

Johnvr4, as has been explained to you, you should not discuss these topics even when someone asks you about them. Please re-read what Moe Epsilon explained about topic bans above. On an unrelated note, neither your recent request nor your topic ban violation had any effect on the page history. The history has always been complete, back from December 2016 when Buckshot06 restored an old version of the article (with its history intact). You can easily check the page history and the logs to see that the diff in question is visible, and that no action regarding visibility was taken since December. So don't believe that you desperately had to do something and that your topic ban violation yielded a result that made it "worthwhile". You apparently just didn't look closely enough earlier to see that there was no problem to begin with. Huon (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou Houn, you're probably right. I wondered as I said a couple of days ago whether my further commenting was wise. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Huon As you stated, I would not have requested restoration of the missing page history if it had been there previously. BS06 and Moe epsilon opposed that restoration so clearly it was not there before. It is there now however.

• Please understand, for the reasons I've already explained, I am ignoring Moe Epsilon because he falsely accusing me of "cooking stuff up in my spare time"-A personal attack. I want no interaction with him either on my talk page nor anywhere else. Note the concern he raised at AfD that caused deletion was fixed as shown in the now available edit history restoration. It clearly shows that Buckshot06 put that crap back into the main space. I warned him that he created his own POV article along with all those old problems and the community appears stuck with it for now.
• I am also ignoring BS06. He can cram his temper. HIS distortion of our sources is clear and obvious just from the surface-scratching diffs I provided. He is incompetent to review sources as demonstrated from his warring edits that delete reliably sourced text. He says I am battleground editing in the face the diffs I provided and his PROVEN inability to review sources. After I warned buckshot06 about reviewing the sources and potential loss of his admin privileges, I quoted him above in a message to Nick-D that said that I was splitting my draft out. It is indisputable that they both knew I was condensing yet at MfD BS06 says "The user has not condensed the material- which is a purposeful Lie. WP:TE. He believes quoting his own words and showing the diffs of his edits with the summaries is a personal attack! here is another quote from him: "If you're unhappy with the consensus of the community, you may seek other-admin action..." That is what I am doing here, now.

The last edit to my sandbox (edited by Johnvr4 at 06:06, 18 August 2017) added a new reliable source that addressed Moe's AfD concern. The draft was nominated for MfD ONLY 1.5 hours later by BS06 as WP:STALE. WP:TE.

Where Nick-D says at MFD "As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised" was obviously untrue too and there is indisputable proof above that shows he knew that to be untrue when they said it simply for the purpose of misleading the community. WP:TE. PMC closed MfD and said I did not raise any WP polices and that previous issues have not been addressed. Both assertions were clearly untrue. I see no reason not to ignore that action as well as each subsequent action that started with an untruth from Buckshot06 or where a decision was wholly based on one- Starting with the MfD, including the Topic ban, and the block.

Please show me where to have these concerns raised right now, where I can appeal the topic ban today-not in six months. Much of this evidence would have been raised at ANI but due to the hurricane we had no power or internet until after the ANI section was closed and I was apparently topic banned. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:BANX *The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.

• I am engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution and addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in the appropriate forum. As a banned user, I think this editing is excepted from the ban according to these rules. I've explained why that is so which was both prior to the block and at the times of the edits. I am not in doubt and ask the editors who imposed the ban to clarify, remove the ban/block and engage in legitimate dispute resolution. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User:AustralianRupert I don't want to offend anyone but can you verify the accuracy of the statements above regarding blatant untruths, vs. simple mistakes as the characterization of these statements is the entirety of the evidence provided in my topic ban. user:RickinBaltimore Can, please explain why this topic ban was placed in effect given the fact that that each previous assertion on which it is based that was made by involved editors Buckshot06 and Nick-D has been proven faulty and was based entirely upon their apparent errors. All comments in agreement at MfD and ANI with them should be thrown out as void. How consensus in this case was reached needs to be re-evaluated or explained.

The alleged Edit warring and Alleged battle ground behavior was based entirely upon Buckshot06's inability to verify single words in sources as shown in his edits on the page in question. The alleged NotHere behavior complaint was based entirely upon Buckshot06s ineptitude and Nick-Ds errors as shown above. The MfD that resulted in deletion of my sandbox draft was faulty and was based entirely upon faulty and false assertions by Buckshot06 and Nick-D (as well as PMC). I have serious reservations regarding exactly how consensus was reached at MfD by PMC, at DRV by User:RoySmith, and at ANI by RickinBaltimore. This message is left in accord with WP:BANX and answers to these questions may be sent to Arbcom if necessary.

break

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Johnvr4". The reason given for Johnvr4's block is: "Intentionally violating a topic ban". The Topic Ban determination was entirely faulty. Reason: The ANI discussion requires the new diff evidence above to legitimately determine consensus. [[WP:BANX]]

• Blocking administrator: Nyttend (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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:

The Topic Ban determination was entirely faulty. The ANI discussion requires relisting and the new diff evidence above to legitimately determine consensus in this dispute. WP:BANX The evidence would show that Buckshot06's WP:TE and inability to verify sources is the root of what he alleges is my battle ground editing and he purposefully lied in nominating my user space draft for deletion. I refuse to listen to his obviously faulty assertions (or proven lies) and the community apparently has sanctioned me for that. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Disagreeing with your topic ban does not give you the right to simply ignore it. Making personal attacks on others is not the way to get yourself unblocked - and it will probably lose you the ability to edit this talk page if it continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

@Boing! said Zebedee, Which Part of my topic ban do you agree with?

Boing! said Zebedee Did you look at the diffs and the reasons for my topic ban? I am certain that those diffs give me the DUTY to ignore that faulty ban since our WP:TE policy already has consensus and local consensus is Against WP policy WP:Consensus. Buckshot06 false concerns at Mfd and ANI are the personal attacks.

You and other admins need to look at those diffs in my first unblock request because any editor that thinks those diffs and the statements they support are personal attacks against BS06 is incompetent. They are factual descriptions of Buckshot06s edits and quotes from his own words and prove his incompetence to WP:Verify one word in a source and he repeated that same behavior over and over again.

No editor has tried to explain how consensus was reached at Ani in the face of those diffs simply because I have made an insurmountable argument that shows Buckshot06s incompetence and his assertions at ANI are his own fabrications of bullshit concerns. Please understand that Insurmountable means there is simply no counter argument that could possibly overcome it. You can't do it and no one else can either. That is why the ban should be ignored. "The central problem with his missing that word being a problem" is that the sheer amount of material he has deleted as a result of it and the amount of talk page discussion and an ANI and then banning me for him to admit doing it is WP:TE and WP already has a consensus policy that says it is disruptive even when it is supposedly an accident. Editors who are unable or unwilling to review those diffs and the reason for my topic ban might be incompetent too if they are still unable to verify what I said about Buckshot06's untruths at MfD and the ANI decision and the roots of his edit warring and battle ground behavior as put forth in my first unblock request. WP:BANX. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

My opinion on the topic ban is not relevant, and I do not have the power to re-judge it - as an admin, all I can do is enforce the community's consensus decision, and that consensus was very clear. If you continue to try re-litigating the ban here on your talk page, you are likely to lose the ability to edit here too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, as you are also continuing to make personal attacks on Buckshot06 here, and as you show no sign whatsoever of accepting your topic ban, I have revoked your talk page access. If you wish to make any further appeals, WP:UTRS is the place to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access

I suggest that TPA be removed for the duration on the block, making personal attacks as Buckshot06 points out above and uncounted time wasted on a user who is not getting it, but is enjoying placing unblock request and walls of text and feeding on replies. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Done by Boing! said Zebedee - FlightTime (open channel) 15:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime Perhaps you could explain exactly what you think that I am not getting given the diffs I provided in my first block request. No competent editor could possibly agree with a single one of Buckshot06's faulty assertions that led to my ban given those diffs. I have shown that he purposely misled the community and lied at MfD and at AnI as demonstrated by his own diffs and statements. If you think that is a personal attack or would care to disagree, then go right ahead and relist the ANI and put forth a valid argument there. That is my intent WP:BANX and my policy arguments and observations of his WP:TE behavior is indisputable--which he has blamed entirely on me. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #19645 was submitted on Nov 04, 2017 13:57:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #19707 was submitted on Nov 07, 2017 15:33:34. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #19713 was submitted on Nov 08, 2017 04:18:35. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• UTRS note Due to persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT appeals via UTRS, Johnvr4 has been blocked from making further appeals via UTRS for 1 month.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Orlando's Summer of Love for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orlando's Summer of Love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando's Summer of Love until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

=

Orlando's Summer of Love

I've responded in the RFU thread already. You are misunderstanding a bit: the original article wasn't deleted on the grounds that it was an inherently "non-notable" thing, it was deleted on the grounds that it was a badly-written article that failed to demonstrate whether the topic was notable or not. It literally just stated that "Orlando's Summer of Love" was a thing that existed, and didn't even attempt to explain what it actually was — so there was no way to notability-test it at all, because there was no real content to evaluate against any of our notability standards.

The fact that the old article was deleted does not mean we have to overturn the original deletion before you're allowed to try again, however — that's not how our deletion rules actually work. If you can write an article that actually has some substance to it, and is thus better than the first version was, then you're totally allowed to do that. We've got a lot of articles where a bad early version got deleted, but then something happened later on that changed the notability equation: new notability achievements that weren't true yet the first time, improved sourcing that didn't exist or hadn't been found yet the first time, and on and so forth. We've even got articles where I was both the deletion nominator of the first version and the creator of the second one. The fact that a bad version got deleted before doesn't mean it can never have an article — if you can write a better article than the first version, then absolutely bring it on, and we don't have to undelete the bad first version before you're allowed to do that. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat, I've left a note on your talk page User_talk:Bearcat#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love_discussion responded to you at Requests for Undeletion too-- where I asked you several questions that you disruptively refused to answer.

The Fact is that the purpose of your nomination as you've repeatedly stated and all of the defenses of that action that have been raised to date is all WP:AADD.

That you refuse to review 15 or 16 citations on the subject with WP:LONGQUOTEs that make it incredibly easy to verify--even for the laziest of editors-- and continue to claim these sources don't have any relation to the subject is frankly absurd.

That you refuse to acknowledge that the original concern of term used by one author brought forth regarding notability in the Merge discussion at Talk:Orlando,_Florida#Merger_proposal is also disruptive.

That you continue to claim "there is no way to notability-test" in direct contradiction with WP:N,WP:NRV, and WP:GNG; and your repeated assertions that our notability standards are determined by content is in direct violation of WP:FAILN, WP:CONTN, WP:NEXIST, and WP:SUSTAINED (plus others).

It's also pretty disruptive that in the same breath as the dubious assertions you have put forth above, you are claiming to be familiar with or even wrote these WP very policies, and are daring me against citing any WP policy to you. With all due respect, this is beyond absurd. It is laughable!

That you refuse to comprehend, address, or offer any sensible WP policy-based response to any comment or question made to you is disruptive too.

That being said, what exactly is your current policy-based notability concern and are you able to point me to that policy? If you can't, it's fairly strong evidence of your disruptive editing.

Please prove me wrong. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As i already explained several times, and was 100 per cent correct about, you do not demonstrate that a topic is notable by writing one sentence about it which merely states that it exists but fails to explain what it is or why it might be notable, and then jengastacking fifteen different footnotes onto that single sentence which are all violating our copyright rules by quoting the entire text of the source verbatim — you demonstrate that a topic is notable by using your sources to write several paragraphs worth of substantive content about it, and citing it to footnotes which just provide the citation details rather than quoting the entire source directly.

That is not incompatible with any of our other rules. Copyright violations, for example, must be deleted from Wikipedia: even if a topic is "inherently" notable, then the copyright-violating version still has to be deleted and restarted from scratch in a new, non-copyright-violating form. We also have a principle called WP:TNT, under which "blow it up and start over" is a valid, policy-compliant response to some Wikipedia articles — an article most certainly can have other problems serious enough that even if the topic is technically notable, we still have to delete it and allow somebody to try again anyway.

And as I already explained in the RFU thread, I do not have a responsibility to acknowledge, or answer for, or even consider, a thing I did not say. It is entirely possible for the user who did say that to have been wrong, while everybody who actually participated in the actual AFD discussion was still correct about what we said — there is, again, no conflict between those two things. One person can say something incorrect, without it meaning that everybody else who didn't say that was also incorrect about anything.

You have already been advised, by several established Wikipedia administrators, that if you feel you can do better, you have the right to try again. You have already been advised that the initial discussion is not a permanent ban on "Orlando's Summer of Love" ever being allowed to have an article — if you can write more substance about it, to actually explain in detail what it was and why it's notable, then you are allowed to try again. We do not have to undelete the original version before you're allowed to do that. But if you think it warrants an article, then the onus is on you to write the article properly: several paragraphs of content that put it into context, supported by citations that are not violating our WP:COPYRIGHT rules by quoting the entire text of the source verbatim. It's not anybody else's responsibility to let a badly-written article stand just because somebody might get around to improving it someday — if you want the article to exist, then it is your responsibility to write the article properly right off the bat.

If you had invested half as much energy in writing a proper new article as you've put into arguing about the deletion of the bad old one, you'd have been done already. So if you want to work on a better version, then just go bloody do it already.

You were also advised in the RFU discussion that I am not willing to discuss this any further. If I ever get another ping in my notification queue from you at all, you're getting a 24-hour editblock. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat, No one cares that you think you were 100% correct. The assertion carries no weight.

Editors such as myself want you to show us why you believe that.

Which source do you believe has a WP:COPYVIO by quoting the "entire text" of the source verbatim"? Where is the evidence that a WP:LONGQUOTE I used is an entire article and that the relevant text on the subject as cited was not put there to counteract rapid WP:LINKROT.

Please also note the exceptions to WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NFC in relation to WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:FOOTNOTE (or WP:QUOTE) that undermine your alleged WP:COPYVIO reasoning for WP:TNT. TNT applies to "a page that is hopelessly irreparable." It would never apply to a one-sentence stub or one that should remain per WP:FAILN.

Again, your reliance on "the article's content is useless" from WP:TNT in a violation of WP:AADD, but also note that WP:TNT is the easiest to overturn at DRV--should the issue end up there. Your belief that a one sentence stub can ever be "hopelessly irreparable" or can never be improved is what I think probably the most absurd reasoning put forth yet. That which you have put forth above on COPY or TNT policy does not appear to be valid policy-based reasoning for the deletion nomination. Your claim appears meritless.

Your responses do not in any way help me determine what the actual policy-based concern was that led to deletion or what- if anything an expanded article (which I've already begun writing) would require besides expansion and WP:CITETRIM.

We can agree to disagree but I have now accepted no less than THREE of your so-called "Dares." Since you cannot cite a single valid policy-based concern, and have never remotely cited WP:TNT as your reasoning in any previous nomination, discussion, or edit summary about this subject until now, it's fairly strong evidence of your disruptive editing. If I get any edit blocks, I don't think it's going look good for you when you just dig in on shaky ground. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Every single thing I told you was exactly rooted in policy; the fact that every single other person who commented in the RFU discussion at all backed me up, and nobody supported your interpretation, should have been a clue that I'm not the one standing on shaky ground here: you are.

I did warn you that I was done with this argument, and I'm not whistling Dixie here. Once again, if you had invested half as much energy into writing a proper new article as you've put into arguing about this, you could have been done writing a good article already. So keep that in mind: when your block expires tomorrow, work on writing a new article properly or drop the stick. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, you just do not know how to stop: [22] [23] [24]--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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:

Jo-Jo Eumerus (and other participants in previous discussion) and myself were stuck in a content/policy dilemma that were were trying to solve. Jo-Jo Eumerus asked for self-review at AN. The AN was closed between the time I thanked Jo-Jo Eumerus for opening the AN and the posting of my message--approx 1.5 hours. Other involved editors commented. As I posted my reply in the AN, there was a message about an edit conflict. I backed up and found the AN closed so I was unable to post the response. I left a message on the talk page but he would simply not allow my comment under any circumstance User_talk:Ymblanter#Premature_AN_closure.

I felt the Jo-Jo Eumerus' comment did not remotely capture my side of the dispute and the premature closure only prevented us from resolving our policy vs content issue. My intended message at AN was (or would have been if it had not been repeatedly deleted) was simply to clarify the actual issue being reviewed at AN and to urge policy adherence. The intended edit at AN:

• I am the involved editor and am hereby requesting that all follow established WP guidelines and polices. Wikipedia:Closing discussions DRV closure concerns, WP:Notability (events) for GNG concerns, and WP:CONTN, WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST for Content concerns.

It appears Hut 8.5's vote was given undue weight at DRV. I'm not sure why he is making a claim about carrying on arguing given it is his (and others) inability or utter refusal to answer direct questions. The ambiguity of such absurd complaints requires further discussion--ad nauseum because my very simple questions are never answered! The refusal to answer direct questions, from user:Bearcat (the AfD Nom at Rdu), to user:Hut 8.5 to user:Jo-Jo Eumerus: is the thing preventing me (or any other editor) from moving forward with a new draft. As shown here:

1. Requests_for_undeletion#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love
2. User_talk:Johnvr4#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love
3. user:Hut_8.5#"I_suggest_you_contribute_to_it..."_Comment
4. User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Orlando Summer of Love DRV closure Comment

I feel that I have asked legitimate questions about the interpretation of the WP discussion closing policy in relation to the recent DRV closure made. No answers have been provided to my questions that do not violate other policies.

It pretty clear that no one is even reading the reason we are here at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Orlando Summer of Love DRV closure Comment. Adherence to WP policy is hopeless with WP:SQS

How does one write a new draft if it is alleged that reliable sources don't offer non-trival, indepth coverage?? One cannot have it both ways here:

That someone says, "a new draft could be written on the subject (with these sources)..." in the same breath that, ..."these sources have no substantial coverage of the subject", fails all logic.

In response to no rebuttal offered claims at DRV, there were new sources offered. In fact, Four of them made that comparison to counter an entirely bogus JustMadeup claim and associated delete votes at AfD.--end intended comment at AN

This is the second block this week from an involved editor. That block expired before I could even challenge it-as described at DRV. Please review it too! If unblocked, I intend to work on a sandbox draft and seek assistance to help me through the reliable sources noticeboard and/or dispute resolution.

Johnvr4 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"You had enough chances to put your arguments forward. This is the end of it." is a reasonable response to what happened. When the community has decided that an argument has come to a conclusion, you need to let it go. Continuing past that point is disruptive, even if you're absolutely sure that everyone else is wrong. If you're going to continue arguing in other noticeboards, you won't be unblocked early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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 am not an involved editor. I have never heard about Johnvr4 until two hours ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Ymblanter is involved as of today when he determined that my previous policy arguments at RDU, DRV, were just a STICK and then closing AN discussion down after 1.5 hours preventing my clarifying comment. Half of the four editors commenting AN were involved.

Ymblanter's talk page statement shows that he purposefully prevented me from clarifying my the other side concern that was raised at AN. He said, "I am afraid the only way you can avoid a block is to drop the stick. We are not going to hold a review of a closure of a closure of a DR."--Ymblanter 19:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC) and, "You had enough chances to put your arguments forward. This is the end of it."--Ymblanter 19:47, 21 October 2019

Since, "We can't hold review of the 1.5 hour AN discussion he closed, I had no choice but to comment anyway and/or reopen AN. The undo was probably not done correctly but that's why the it was done. Ymblanter is involved to the point of purposefully prematurely closing a valid AN discussion that required a clarification of the disagreement, threatening to block me, and then acting on the threat to block me. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, “What happened” was the complete ignoring of policy (specifically Wp:N(E) and my challenges were a reasonable response to “what happened.” Johnvr4 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that point very clearly. Other editors didn't agree. Now you need to move on to something else. It's not easy to accept, but that's how English Wikipedia works. I remember once that I was sure that someone was adding non-neutral prose to an article. I tried to fix myself, but I was reverted by the editor who added it. I posted to the article's talk page, and nobody responded. I posted to WP:NPOVN and asked other editors to look into it, and nobody responded. I posted to a WikiProject's discussion page and ask them to review the edits, and nobody responded. After that, I gave up. That page is still probably a mess. But, you know what, I don't even remember what the title was any more. I moved on. It's someone else's problem now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I appreciate the message. The problem (or “point”) is that there is already consensus in the policies that I cited in my arguments. It doesn’t matter whether others “agree” ‘’with me.’’ Everything done on WP has to be in accordance ‘’with those policies’’. Admins do not ever get to just ignore WP policies that they don’t agree with. If they don’t agree, then they can try to rewrite the policy and gain consensus for their change. When they ignore policies anyway, the arguments should not be given weight. Most of my arguments were copy pasted directly from WP policy—so, frankly when someone doesn’t agree with a quoted WP policy, or make a policy-based counter argument of their own, then those their concerns should not given any weight either. When a whole stack of admins do it, that is no less meritless. Would you agree?

May I show you why what I’ve described is, in fact, the case?

That a new draft is being working on (with the same sources) and with all these unfounded non-policy based (civil version: “ridiculous”—- but really just utterly stupid) “concerns” of other eds is still “my” problem. You know the AN closure is going to force me to have to go to RSN and DR to present 25 different sources as evidence of (Wp:N-E) and every Ed that opposed or has remotely said the topic failed GNG or the sources from DRV aren’t substantive coverage is going to get mentioned and I see no way to avoid embarrassment—-For every individual source put forth and opposed in closing DRV. This is what I have to do now to move forward given the (stupid) insistence that no source used has substantive coverage of the subject. There was a much simpler and less embarrassing method to establish Wp:N(E) such as rfu, DRV, AN... But those methods are not going to be available to me anymore because established WP policy and the consensus of the policy itself is being ignored by a faction of local consensus admins. ::Johnvr4 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No, all you need to do is write an actual article draft at AfC which establishes notability. When your block expires, write a draft of the article and then find me on my talk page. I will give you a neutral peer review of the article, including areas I think you can improve, and whether I would vote to delete the article on notability grounds. If it's acceptable, then we can take it to AfC and have another editor review it and possibly get it accepted to the encyclopaedia. I will note I am concerned that we will get into an argument if I do not think the draft article is notable or ready for mainspace, and I will stop trying to help you if that happens. The sooner you accept we are not ignoring policy and start focusing on improving the article you'd like to see in the encyclopaedia, the faster this will get resolved. If you keep going to different forums to argue for the article's notability, you're likely to receive an even longer block. SportingFlyer T·C 04:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Please see the rough draft in my sandbox52 as well as the comment to Hut8.5 and others with a version of this draft. You can see those who have been demanding to see a draft version that “proves Notibilty through text”— Despite this draft being linked in previous arguments are the same editors ignoring my policy arguments. You can see who they are.

I still disagree with any requirement to prove N in content as I think it violates WP polices. One can review sources to determine WP:N(E). I still disagree with not reading arguments or not answering questions in discussion because it also violates policy. There’s a chance we’ll disagree but since I make mistakes all the time, I am certainly wide open to any logical discussion and will happily change any position I have held if shown the a more correct policy and it’s application to the case I’ve put forth. That just hasn’t happened to date. Johnvr4 (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've looked at the sandbox article - I think you'd agree it's not quite ready for mainspace, but your biggest current problem is the fact the only source I see in your sandbox which actually defines 1991–92 as the "Orlando Summer of Love" is the Orlando Weekly. There's content here which could be used for the Beacham theatre and there's a lot here which could be used for an article on rave culture in Orlando, but I'm not sure the topic you're trying to write on will be found to be notable without other sources. Also, I know you know, but just another warning about the long citations as potential copyright violations. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: No way is it ready for anything. There are 4 sources described at DRV. We have 91-92, The other source says "in the early 90s". One Haight-Ashbury comparison is immediately after July 4, 93 which was a significant date--as was July 3rd.

Like the Second summer of Love in UK-which did not end, FLSOL just evolved and July 4, '93 was the night that the sources state the scene really went into a new phase--it "exploded"

The fourth source says "mid to late 90s" from a twice cited author but (from the source) was only about 7 years old in 88 and started into the already established south Florida scene and drugs at age 15.

The draft is currently just the basic outline and lead while I scratch it out. The naming part is sourced.

The long quotes are for any eds that claim there’s not any substantive content in any source. :::::::It’s clear there is a plethora on the Florida 90s dance music scene. I just can’t call it that. “Florida breaks” and Beacham would have trouble encompassing the topic and I don’t want to build a Frankenstein. What would you suggest calling it? Johnvr4 (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC) @SportingFlyer: Johnvr4 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

SOL dev

@SportingFlyer:, it looks like we’ll have to move the dev discussion here for a bit. Yes, I looked at the common name policy a few years ago. That’s actually how I came up with Summer of Love. Two local authors use the term. Two more make the Haight-Ashbury comparison. I’m open to other choices but SOL seemed the best option (to me). Some of the music content from the sandbox52 draft sources will go to Florida breaks which covers the music genre. There are other common name options for the FL genre there. Adding to the confusion, the fL breaks genre covers two distinctly different regional sounds. Orlando is where they both happened. SOL is when. Beacham Theatre has some underground content and has some content overlap (and sources) see cultural significance. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: Please find me on my talk page when you're unblocked again. I am disappointed to see you have been blocked per WP:STICK, as I told you a couple talk pages ago arguing you have policy on your side will not get you want you want, and yet you have continued to do so. There hasn't been a single person who has agreed with you on your interpretation of policy so far, but again, it doesn't matter. There have been times consensus has gone against what I would have liked and it is frustrating, but I hope going forward you can recognise the way to solve the problem is to demonstrate the notability of the article you want to create in draftspace. SportingFlyer T·C 03:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: This message is regarding your recent edit deleting the temporary LONGQUOTEs from a draft in my sandbox. These were incorporated under WP:Quotations and specifically under WP:LONGQUOTES and WP:COPYQUOTE which are exceptions to WP:NFC. WP:NFCC is also an exemption policy. I understand WP:TOP100 but excessive I assumed meant unnecessary /un-related content or permanent. As you know (when you were pinged), Editors have questioned the WP:N(E) of the subject era have claimed these very sources with the LONGQUOTES do not have any substantive content on the subject. The LONGQUOTES are required to allow other editors relying on WP:THREE to easily verify the content and substantial coverage of the subject in multiple sources. Please also see WP:LR at Wikipedia:Link_rot#Alternative_methods. I am using them too to write and source the draft article. Perhaps I am missing something important in policy. Can you advise? Thanks, Johnvr4 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to store long quotations from your sources in your user space (or anywhere else on this wiki for that matter). Please make use of an off-line text editor such as Word or Google Docs for this purpose. The material is still visible in the page history, so you could make use of it from that source as well if you prefer. The relevant policy page is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which states in part that "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media." the related content guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content states that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quotations and User:RoySmith/Three best sources are both essays, and are trumped by the above guideline and policy pages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, I know that THREE is an essay but certain editors are enforcing Roy’s essay like policy (there is a redundant policy that makes Three unnecessary), and have refused to verify more than 3 sources for this very subject at DRV or have claimed the subject is MADEUP, fails GNG/N/N(E) at AfD and many other places. I can’t make anyone else read sources or policies but I can make it incredibly easy for anyone to see what these sources offer on this subject with longquotes. Most of the sources to use got deleted along with the longquotes. The reflist was only adequate to verify that the title met the common name policy threshold. I hope this clarifies the necessity of the temporary longquotes. They won’t be in the final version. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content states that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". Don't re-add these quotes to your sandbox. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Could you please restore the deleted source citations themselves without the quotes. I can’t do it currently. Thanks Johnvr4 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know that no, I will not be editing on your behalf while you are blocked. That's not allowed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I was not asking you to edit on my behalf. I only was asking you to modify your edit and leave the deleted sources and the WP:LONGQUOTE that preserves WP:V from the WP:404 page(s). Johnvr4 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, Please modify your recent edit. As you can see, the large quotes are necessary for editor verification per "Pretty clear here that the sources haven't convinced anyone to modify the AFD close, mostly due to e.g concerns that there is not enough substance in the mentioned sources."Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_October_11#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love. There is just no way that determination can stand given the substance in those very sources.

• This is getting way out of hand. I've revoked Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #27271 was submitted on Oct 24, 2019 02:50:59. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 Why did you feel the need to revoke my talk page access? Johnvr4 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 I've asked you a direct question and have given you enough time to come up with an intelligent response. I demand an answer! Johnvr4 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Verifiabilty

Hi Johnvr4. I wanted to make sure that you understand that content in Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. You restored this unsourced content, but you failed to include source citations. I'm going to be trimming some additional unsourced content from the article (see talk page), and I would like to make sure that we are not in conflict on that front. Please let me know if you have any questions. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: You will note that after that restore, I did in fact add references. I didn't add the Death video sentence but I did re-add it as I don't have any reason to doubt that an Orlando band filmed their video there and a source is probably out there so I restored it with the tag. I don't really care about metal but I do care about verifiability. I just haven't taken the time to look for a source for it. I thought that I added a source for the reggae acts but its not there. I'll have to add those.

As for needed sourcing and deleting content, please mark where you think sources are needed and wait, there are dozens of sources to sort through (please see the talk page and links). If you'd like clarification on anything, please don't hesitate to ask me. If you are at all interested in this subject, I could use some help writing a similar article in my sandbox52 Thanks, Johnvr4 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Addendum, I've reverted. I added a few reggae sources and will add some more (I've run out of free Sentinel articles). There's a "documentary" about the making of metal band's video, that confirms the claim as true but it needs a RS. John Johnvr4 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for adding the sources. As I mentioned on the article talk page, my main concern is the section that already has a lot of detailed content with several citation needed tags. If you are working on sourcing that sections, I'll hold off, but I wouldn't want to leave it in that state for too long.- MrX 🖋 23:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, as you see I'm working on another one in my sandbox52 on the Florida breaks scene and will be reviewing those sources too. The citation needed tags lets me know to be on the lookout for the source. It may be a while to get through all of the sources. I haven't even found copies of some of them yet. I appreciate your efforts to improve it! Johnvr4 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The authenticity of one of your photos is highly questionable

Hi Johnvr4,

I found out by coincidence that there seems to be a confusion with the incinerator ships Vulcanus I and II. The former was used to burn the remainings of Agent Orange after the Vietnam War. You uploaded a a photo and claimed that it shows the Vulcanus I during Operation Pacer HO. As I wrote in the talk-section of the article about the ship [25], the photo is most likely not depicting the Vulcanus I. To understand my point, please compare the two photos [26] and [27]. Your photo is most likely depicting the Vulcanus II, which was built years after Operation Pacer HO in 1982. A model of the latter can be seen in this photo [28]

62.216.202.201 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of National Security Action Memorandum 235 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Security Action Memorandum 235 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Security Action Memorandum 235 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

10,000th edit

Pacific Ornithological Observation Project acronym POOP and “POOP cruise” added. (Not vandalism).

Don’t laugh. This was serious editing about a serious scientific study!

I remember when WP:POOP used to be it’s own thing here. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just reverted this and removed the full line. It looks like you originally added the mention in 2014, but there's no mention of the name or the acronym in the given source. If there's a WP:RS that predates 2014 for the name, please include it. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, Regis (p. 188) does mention the initial name being "Pacific Ocean Ornithological Project" ... no mention of POOP cruise however. I've reverted myself and edited the section... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been saving that one for a long while. I’m sorry it attracted your attention. Thank you for going back to the source. I honestly don’t think I’ve looked at that source in 10 years. I just assumed mention of the cruises was in that source too. I just took a glance at the page. What I remember from when I was editing (which is probably faulty) is that Jack Alderson was the Army tugs Navy commander so he might be the source mainly because it probably involved him as commander and he testified and was quoted in a lot of articles in the early 2000s; and the POOP cruise term just sounds like the military marking fun of it. Cruise is Navy/Marine Corps terminology for a sea voyage mission. Somehow I know the other term “bird cruise” I have no idea where I got that from but feel highly confident using it and must have read it somewhere… The source could very likely have been the Phase II study but somehow the archive link is not functional as it only has one page or less. I’ve never seen that before. Several years ago I saw a complete version on the web and specifically on a veteran-centered webpage. That source was exhaustive too. I just don’t recall the specific one if it’s not in Regis or one of those I’ve mentioned above .Johnvr4 (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve edited many articles that discussed this global Cold War research program. My knowledge of the P.O.O.P cruise or cruises could have come from one of the sources I used or reviewed elsewhere. As one can see from the source, this was a public-facing scientific program that was a top-secret military guise. I found another potential source I’d used while citing another page and it mentions worldwide press articles of the era on the goal of the research subject. For examples [29]

And [30]

This reference about the acronym can be used too:

“We’ve come in search of records of a little-known expedition called the Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program (POBSP; this replaced the original name, Pacific Ocean Ornithological Project, when someone stopped to consider acronyms).” The Strange Tale of the Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program.

Johnvr4 (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnvr4, "POOP cruise" sounds like sailor humor and quite probable, but, as always we need a WP:RS for it. I think as it stands now the article sufficiently cites the original name and the realization about the acronym sparking a name change. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Carter, I think my small 10,000th contribution and your inquiry asking for a better source is going to break Wikipedia. …Or at least break any poop searching bots.

I took a very brief look to find out whether there might be a few additional sources to review. The reason that I stopped reviewing after the first one is that it appears that there are more than enough silly excrement-related names and nicknames to fill main page article one focus on this program and another on the humorous names.

The link below does not contain a mention of the POOP cruises. It does mention the POOP Troopers (which is probably even funnier). There is likely an unlimited number similar names. I have not looked too hard yet at other potential sources and certainly haven’t found it to date but how likely do you think is it that a RS mentioning poop cruises exists?

”The POBSP collection in the Smithsonian Archives balances technical data and qualitative and quantitative scientific observations with a rather bizarre sense of humor that leaves its undertones in their correspondence, journals, and weekly newsletter. This newsletter …operated under the name “Droppings from the Eagle’s Roost.”

”The Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program began under another, rather unfortunate moniker, the Pacific Ocean Ornithological Program. I’ll let you take a moment to figure out the acronym used by them in the early days. This name lived as a running joke among the Program, with scientists and office assistants referring to those in the field as “Poop Troops.” Along with spawning the title of the newsletter, “Droppings,” other names along that line were used by those in the field writing back to the D.C. offices. These names included “Petrel Pellets,” “Puffin Poo,” and my personal favorite, “Seepage from the Guano Pit.”

No Wheat Chex, and other scientific issues of the 1960s.

You may have created a monster! Johnvr4 (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)