User talk:JohnInDC

Robert Paulele

John,

Why are you attempting to erase my clients Wikipedia.? He is a notable coach and player that has worked with many Superbowl Champions. Troy Polamalu, Earl Christy, Tom Herter, & Bob Sanders are his high profile players he has either played or coached. Do your homework next time you attempt to delete somebody pedigree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.lane.smww (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did a good bit of work. I took what I could find about the subject (which is not much) and laid it up against the notability requirements of WP:BIO and found it wanting. He had an undistinguished college career, no meaningful professional career, and since then has held a variety of coaching positions. This all falls well short of the kind of specific attention that is required. (The notability of people with whom he has worked, or along side of, is beside the point. Notability doesn't rub off.) I also checked every single external link in the article and removed the ones that were dead ends.

Since you note that he is a client of yours, you probably should look into the page on conflicts of interest. Broadly speaking, it's a bad idea to edit articles about subject with which you have a personal or financial connection. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I gave User:99.112.212.119 an edit warring warning regarding the edits being made to Clathrate gun hypothesis. Thought you should know in case they continue to try to force the changes. demize (t · c) 06:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. He's a serial sockpuppet / vandal - it's been going on for years - and that account is blocked by now. Take a look at User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list for an idea of the scope of the problem. I don't think this fellow holds down a day job, that's for sure! JohnInDC (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Technicalitycatcher

I'll be editing and eagle-eyeing your contributions and errors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technicalitycatcher (talk • contribs) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll read that as a good-humored, if slightly clumsy jibe and not as a statement of your intention to begin hounding me. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested . . . .

John, I'd like to get your opinion on the revised college football player infobox: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Brooklyn

How on EARTH does the November 2005 picture of the Brooklyn Bridge make a better representation of Brooklyn, then a December 2014 aerial picture of the Brooklyn itself?talk→ WPPilot  23:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't hard. The Brooklyn Bridge is an iconic symbol of the borough, instantly recognizable to many people. The prior photo was also very nicely composed and colorful. The aerial photo that you took is, in the size it's presented, nearly featureless; not to mention being sort of brown and colorless, and skewed. The Brooklyn Bridge photo was plainly a superior photo, and on the whole a better representation than the poorly scaled photo you substituted. I've looked at several of your photo contributions and many of them are pretty nice shots, but you might do well to think in each case whether your photo is in fact an improvement over the one that was there. JohnInDC (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue at the article Talk page. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There are several articles, like Central Park, Empire State Building (original image restored), White House (different image now displayed), Washington Monument (which has a Featured Picture I've restored), etc., which have had lead images replaced with ones that are not as good. It's nothing personal, WPPilot. It's just some of your images are not as good as the ones that you're replacing. We should display the best we have to offer, especially on such highly-viewed articles. The reasoning that photos are a couple of years old doesn't matter, IMO. APK whisper in my ear 02:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Even when the photos are no longer accurate and are aged as much as 10 years? You opinion does not take into account the fact that the photos your restoring, no longer represent the subject, i.e. the White House, Central Park, Washington Monument The pic you "like" just like the picture of a bridge, is 10 years old and as such no longer accurate. talk→ WPPilot  03:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think a photo has become inaccurate - particularly a photo that has been in place for a long time, and particularly when the photo is a Featured Picture - then raise the issue on the article Talk page to see if you can gain a consensus to change or update it. Also, particularly if your preferred photo is one that you yourself took. Taking these steps will ensure that Wikipedia continues to display the best possible photos available, and will probably reduce the number of times your new photos are quickly swapped back out for the prior version. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Most the time, I do. I have a number of current featured photos myself and am aware of protocol here. With regard to the photo of a bridge representing a city, as the bridge is iconic with the city is not really a valid argument. Wikipedia is not a art display that uses iconic images as the lead image to represent a city, that is really a bad argument, ot that "it has been here a long time so ask first", all due respect but the site evolves with updates, fresh updates at that, not lethargy for pretty icons that to some people provide "symbolism", is that correct.... talk→ WPPilot  03:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably the discussion about the better photograph for Brooklyn should be continued at that Talk page. Meanwhile I do think that Talk discussions before you make these edits, rather than after, is the better course for both you and the encyclopedia. JohnInDC (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, you win, I think I am going to retire from the site. I am tired of dealing with idiots. It is no longer worth my time. talk→ WPPilot  02:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)