User talk:John lilburne: Difference between revisions

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This edit could be construed as a Personal Attack. Please be more careful in your discourse. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but there is only so much sugar coating that one can do. The problem here is that a reliable source for X said Y, is being used as a reliable source for Y is so. I'll rephrase it. John lilburne (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you point it was "particular redirector has shown... woefully incapable] of understanding causality." part that bothered me and might you into trouble. just a friendly reminder. Please note in addition that I warned him for what he said to you about "Cirtwatch" at the other AFD The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I have a pretty thick skin. I did notice Cirt doing some time wasting here which should be amusing. John lilburne (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm thats pretty normal. I been watching that too. My advice dont get involved The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just noticed your listed there hmm. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm indeed, and no I'm not getting involved. John lilburne (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Apparently blocked for what? This is a static IP address in the UK that I've used for the last 10 years. With a slew of USENET posts over the same period all using the same IP and associated NNTP posting host none of which are CoS related. If this is the normal result of CU activity it is severely flawed. John lilburne (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could clear it up by revealing who your previous user ID's actually were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all that needs to be done is to put the IP address of this post into google and it will come up with 10 years of USENET posts that are anti-religion in all its forms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs)

Bugs, why are you here right now? Comments like that are really not helpful. Guilty until proven innocent :/ - Alison ^❤ 03:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He began here with too much knowledge for a newbie, and with a wise-guy attitude. His comment above pretty much answers the question I asked, so we're good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, you've been unblocked. My apologies to you for that; I jumped the gun a bit and misread a comment you made. Sorry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No harm. You were both handed a poisoned chalice from the outset. Still my use of Hubbardistas ought to have alerted you both to the fact that WP:DUCK did not apply. John lilburne (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in this, so I thought I'd better let you know:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to straighten Hrafn out on the published views of David Berlinski. As you may have noted, both Hrafn and Raul645 sought to balete the evidence that I had previously raised to their attention some three years ago, demonstrating that they were publishing blatant falsehoods about David Berlinski, James Tour, and Rosalind Picard (among others). Note also that it has since come to light that User:Odd nature was a sock puppet of FeloniousMonk. —Moulton (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have my cranks and trolls properly categorized. In any case mislabeling in such a daft way lessens the main argument. I'd only encountered him from that BLP thread and a quick scan of the article led one to think that something wasn't quite right.

Found some of Berlinski's turns of phrase amusing: "rather like the old Studio 54, in which everyone is simultaneously involved with everyone else, frequently in ways no one wishes to know." I don't know who User:Odd nature or the other one is perhaps I'll encounter him at some time. John lilburne (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• IDCab used to be led by User:FeloniousMonk (aka User:Odd nature, User:Centaur of Attention) who was roundly smacked down by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power. Now Hrafn and Guettarda are reprising those same atrocious practices. —Moulton (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They would probably be apoplectic if they knew I'd spent this afternoon in three churches. But then where else can you get to photograph Anglo-Saxon and Norman stone work, unearth the works of Victorian stained glass manufacturers, designs by Pugin, and get some shots of a few ECW graves all within a 5 mile radius? Now if I could get the Spencer's to open up that chapel/mausoleum of theirs, guess I'm going to have to try writing to them again. John lilburne (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very biased view of things by Moulton who you will note is a banned user. In general, working with a banned user to evade his ban is not a good idea. (There are problems with the Berlinski article. They can be repaired without the assistance of an extremely disruptive user who apparently can't go a few sentences without attacking other users with his conspiracy theories). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Berlinkski it does not appear that he supports ID that much I gleaned from looking at the sources way before discovering that Moulton had pointed out the exact same thing 2 years or more ago. Whatever the merits of Moulton's conspiracy, and I don't really care about it nor any of the actors, the fact remains that after two years people are still aggressively fighting to label Berlinski as an IDer whilst at the same time knowing full well that he is not. John lilburne (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What perplexes me, John, is what the remnants of IDCab have to gain by falsely portraying critics and skeptics of ID as supporters of ID. FeloniousMonk made a career of making meritless accusations against others, and eventually ArbCom smacked him down for it. Now Joshua Zelinsky and Tracy Walker continue in the pattern of abuse that they inherited from Paul Mitchell. Why? What's in it for them? —Moulton 05:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is as pointless to speculate on motives of the above, as it is to speculate on the motives of Berlinski. We can all have our pet theories on both. As I've said before:

If one appropriates the clothes of another, one can hardly complain about being miss identified as that other person.

And that applies to Berlinski. However, I would want some one who had stolen Fred's clothes to be prosecuted for theft, not for being Fred. John lilburne (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If left-wingers and right-wingers both criticize the centrist, and both argue that the centrist has it all wrong, how many Wikipedia editors will imagine that the critics on the left and the critics on the right are intimate bedfellows? —Montana Mouse 11:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi John! I'm so happy to read on your page that you are a photographer. This means that even if you are an atheist, you might be useful to the cause.... What we need is a few good pics of Hardman windows. My pictures are all from Sydney, and while they are wonderful windows, I would rather we had some from a notable church in the UK. Any chance of taking some nice shots? Amandajm (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something like this? Unfortunately my image uploading account got banned, and I've not uploaded anything since then. However, treat the link here as a freebie, it is from Tewkesbury Abbey 1888. BTW a lot of Hardman's work went into small parish churches.

BTW copyright stuff etc, is in the EXIF. John lilburne (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you get yourself a new account? Were you really that nasty? That is a beautiful picture!

Yes, one see Hardman windows all over the place. However, Sydney is lucky enough to have two complete cycles, one at St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney and the other at St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney. The St Andrew's windows are from the 1850's and, being earlier, are more remarkable for the Gothic elegance of their design, because they were probably designed by Powell. The windows at Smary's date from 1880s-1930s. The east window is spectacular, being set in tracery based on that of the east window of Lincoln (very large) but really a lot more exicting than the east window glass at Lincoln which is mid 19th century, with finicky details not visible unless you're up in the gallery.

Sydney also has a spectacular cycle of windows in the Great Hall of Sydney University, which are by Clayton and Bell. I often wonder how those designers felt, when they packed up a huge and important commission and sent it on a journey of thousands of miles to a building that they had never seen, to be installed by colonials who might or might not know what they were doing. They never got to see the blazing sun of Sydney sparkling through all the little white roses that Hardman put in the St Andrew's east window, having chosen a very dark blue as the background. Or the fantastic sight of C&B's oriel and western windows of the Great Hall at sunset on a winter's evening. Luckily, both Hardman and C&B were working with a superb architect, Edmund Blacket, which they must have realised when they received the specs.

What is EXIF? Can I upload that pic from Tewkesbury to Wikimedia Commons? Do I simply give your user name as having given permission? or what? (I don't usually get pics from on the internet.) Amandajm (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is the user-name nothing else. However, that particular pseudonym is the one that I use when I release work under a commercial license. I have another user name for work release under a non-commercial license and by having the two I can keep track of what was released under which license. The EXIF and IPTC data contains copyright information and contact details, you should be able to upload the file and attribute it to Nastytroll. Should anyone complains then OTRS can confirm with me (or via the contact information embedded in the file) that the license and attribution is correct. Alternatively you can get the blocking admin to unblock the account, but I'm having nothing to do with it. John lilburne (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject himself admits he is a Jew. http://www.businessinsider.com/dominique-strauss-kahn-liberation-interview-woman-raped-parking-lot-set-up-2011-5 It needs to be added back to his Infobox. We always have the religion listed in infoboxes - Just look at the US Politicians. We need to know how many jews on the Supreme Court, US Congress, etc. The head of the IMF being a Jew is directly relevant. He is a Jew international banker. Why else do we have the Category French Jews - So we know who is one of course. 64.136.197.17 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not part of his notability. You can mention it in the article itself but the info boxes should be used for aspects that are a large part of their notability. Take it to the talk page - there are several section on religion and ethnicity, none of which are in g=favour of adding this to the infobox. John lilburne (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added additional sources to the article Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri), which is the subject of an AfD you are participating in. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* A few miles from where I live is a row of cottages designed by Edwin Lutyens but one wouldn't write an article on 32 Main Street no matter how many references one could find for the fact that Lutens was the Architect. Similarly were there are a 1000 references to the Mike Waterson singing in Bacca Pipes folk club in the 1980s that does not make the Globe pub in Keighley notable. John lilburne (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We consider a subject notable for wp purposes (note -- this differs starkly from the dictionary definition) if it meets wp's notability criteria, as reflected in gng or one of the more specific criteria. If you have personal views that differ from what the criteria say, a good place to discuss that would be on the tp of the respective criteria. But simply saying "one wouldn't write an article" doesn't communicate to me why the row of cottages would or wouldn't meet the criteria. We certainly have many articles on wp that are on buildings, for example. At the end of the day, though, we hue to the objective criteria of the notability requirements, not to the subjective view of any single editor, who says "I don't think that is famous enough, by my internal fame-meter)".--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the row of cottages might be discussed in relationship to their construction and the architect, but that is not what the Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri) article is doing, that article is trying to obtain notability for the occupiers of the building. A simple article on the building would be fine if what you are claiming is notability based on construction and the architect. John lilburne (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have hundreds of articles (perhaps thousands) on houses, with names that parallel your "32 Main Street". See here. We decide notability for those under GNG the same way that we do for organizations (including houses of workship) under GNG -- coverage in RSs. We don't, as you suggest, have your criteria. You may not like the notability guideline, but that's what determines "notability" for wp purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're are nationally significant places. Grade II and above listed buildings, palaces, castles, and such like. My local pub is a Grade II listed building, a few years ago when it burnt down, due to a chimney fire setting light to the thatch, the owners had to rebuild it with 18th century timbers (which were sourced from Holland), none of which makes the landlord notable. John lilburne (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those places vary in terms of indicia of notability, but the key for them to have wp articles is meeting wp guidelines, not "John believes them to be significant" guidelines. In fact, "significance" is not the notability guideline -- being noted is the guideline. As far as pubs are concerned, wp is also full of articles on them. The same applies -- if they meet wp's guidelines, one of which focuses on coverage (being "noticed"), they properly have articles. And indeed, there are a number of such articles on pubs on wp -- just look here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• shrug* OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In any case most of those pub articles are focused almost entirely on the building, some go back to the 14th century, others have literary connections. But this particular article isn't about the building, just 60 words are devoted to that. Focus the article on the building and I'll support it. John lilburne (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, of course, were the one who initially alluded to "otherstuff". That's what spurred this entire string.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here, and its not limited to this article by any means, is that page inclusion is being justified simply on the existence of a culmination of local news stories over a 50 year period. Any organisation that has been in existence for any length of time will generate press coverage. I was a founder of a local community group in the West Midlands, we used to arrange to get at least one story into the local paper every month or so. Here we have a bunch of press reports when they opened their new building, then decades of pretty much nothing, then press reports of a 50th anniversary. Each of those flurries are RECENTISMS they are responses to single events, and do not demonstrate that the group is notable. One would expect more from an active community organisation. John lilburne (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, you haven't explained your dramatic flip-flop in this string, which I point to in my prior post. Second, your above post simply expresses a dislike on your part for GNG, but it is what it is, and editors here are bound to follow wiki guidelines rather than create their own indicia of "wp notability".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about. You have a building which is perhaps notable in relation to the architect, that is its notability. Unfortunately you are using that notability in order to construct a COATRACK for an article on the community that holds services there, which is not notable under the GNG guidelines. Instance the times of services (which in the article is incorrect), instance the proposed merging (which is a news item). You have nothing there that demonstrates notability of that congregation other than it exists. In this article, which should be a bout a building, you have created a hook that any passing vandal, or antisemite can attack. For perpetuity this article has to be watched and protected, why would you impose that burden on your fellow editors? John lilburne (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is making less and less sense. You make assertions at the AfD that are incorrect. You cf to "otherstuff" at the beginning of this string, and then protest when I cf to otherstuff. You completely ignore GNG, in lieu of your personal criteria. And you atate that an article that the community overwhelmingly says meets GNG "is not notable under the GNG guidelines". Your comments display little concern for accuracy, guidelines, and community consensus. And then you argue that an article should be deleted because it will be a magnet for vandals -- just because it exists? That's exceedingly peculiar; with that reasoning we should delete the abortion article, and all related -- that's not how wp works. We follow our guidelines, and that is not one of them. BTW -- you are seeming increasingly familiar. Have we perhaps met before, with you editing under a different name?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever guideline you think you are following, its application in this instance is wrong. Each article that gets posted is not free, it has associated costs, and when one is dealing with people or communities that cost is maintenance from vandalism, and attacks. The community cannot maintain this article and others like it, the community is not able to keep an eye on 100s or 1000s of articles of this nature, nor will the community be constantly updating them when the Rabbi changes, or the group holds another exhibition, or the times of services change, or if they have a bring-n-buy sale. What we have here is a pile of stuff that editors will forever have to revert crap out of. These are not articles, they are directory listings. Whilst there is merit in having an article on all the Jewish communities of an area, separate articles on small groups within that larger area is unjustifiable, especially when you cannot distinguish any criteria for the difference. John lilburne (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my above question. And note again that our charge here is to follow guidelines, not seek deletion based on non-consensus POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What question was that? My position is clear and consistent, there is no significant coverage of that particular community, one would not construct an article on any other group - local charity, village fete committee, or whatever based on such slight evidence. Press coverage of an exhibition in a village hall does not confer notability on the women's institute that regular holds meetings there. The notability of the architecture of a building do not confer notability on its owners. You are not likely to convince me that you are within policy unless you can show me real enduring notability for that community. John lilburne (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that you continue to ignore my direct questions, and my comments, and to mis-state facts at the AfD, I'm not sure that much profitable can come of this conversation. I would, yet again, suggest that you take to heart the overwhelming consensus rejection of your POV, at the AfD. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about this Have we perhaps met before, with you editing under a different name? the answer is an emphatic NO. Now tell me why exactly are you here whining? John lilburne (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]