User talk:JohnClarknew

This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.

This is JohnClarknew's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

JohnClarknew (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: John Clark (actor/director)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem to me that John Clark (actor/director) meets these criteria, I have started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Clark (actor/director) . Don't forget to add four tildes (<nowiki>TeckWizBot 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)</nowiki>) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.[reply]

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, an administrator will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article.

Please also see the Wikipedia article on autobiograpies --Jamoche 07:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Drury

Hi John, To follow up the discussion of Treasure Island, I emailed Richard Drury (an English professor in Italy who maintains a Robert Louis Stevenson website on derivative works http://dinamico.unibg.it/rls/stage.htm ) - he would like to verify and write to you about the 1947 production but I don't know how to contact you - do you have an email address? Or you can email Richard at , thanks -- Stbalbach 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm at . Be glad to hear from him. JohnClarknew 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I let him know (I removed the emails from this page to protect from spammers). You can also add your email in the "my preferences" page (far top-right of this page) so that others can email you via the "E-mail this user" (far middle-left of this page). It's a safe way of making your email available without exposing it to the world. -- Stbalbach 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actors Equity

This user still an active member. Was at a meeting in 1960 at The Astor Hotel where I gave a speech urging the union to drop this political statement from its constitution. Was shouted down. I don't know how Equity was any better than the other performer unions, AFTRA, SAG, etc. As a member of each, I am unaware that any members were banished for their political beliefs, even for being a communist. If I can be proved wrong, please correct me. I thought the problems related to blacklisting by potential employers. Anyway, I hate distortion. Either drop this claim from the page because its too controversial, or tell all of it. See my blog where I talk about the experience under "nostalgia" stories! JohnClarknew 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Players

I'm having a problem clearing this up (not smart - yet!). I'm trying to link to The Players (the actors' club in New York). But this won't get there. Also, if you go to the Players (club) page, which I re-wrote, there are 2 identical entries, one's a redirect, and one should be deleted. I don't want to screw something up, so can someone else do it? Also, there are far too many "club" entries, it needs to be completely reorganized JohnClarknew 08:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is not obvious, it should really be "The Players", not "Players' Club". I have added the Spitzer press release which I just discovered. I insisted I sit on the board, but when she was away, I got voted off. It was clear that the club was in danger of collapsing, membership dwindling, and attempts to help with the finances and Lynn's income-raising ideas were not appreciated. Lynn was no figurehead, which is what they really wanted. I think the controversy has now blown over, they bit the bullet, but it has never come into the open before. If editors get flack here and prefer, I would put this on my blog. JohnClarknew 07:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Hay

Seems that the excellent Australian website which contained the only known sample of 1944's "The Will Hay Programme" broadcast from London, and old BBC interviews with Will Hay, has disappeared as of 11 October, 2006. Can any of our friends from down under shed light on this, and maybe help to get it back up? I won't delete the external link in case this is temporary. If the page holder has a problem with this, I hope he will contact me. In general, I would have thought that the exposure would be welcomed by him. JohnClarknew 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's reappeared, thank goodness, and I found the website is England based, in fact my home town, Watford, so no issues here. I e-mailed him to confirm.JohnClarknew 08:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Booth family

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Booth family, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Booth family. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. IslaySolomon 07:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick, you appeared about 3 minutes after I finished. I note that you think John Wilkes Booth is "noteworthy", while Edwin Booth, or Junius Brutus Booth and several others of the family are not noteworthy, and that this is just a piece of jangly "genealogy". The reason I have written it is that I find there is nowhere else that an overview of this remarkable family can be found, some of the individual members yes, but not as they relate to each other. This is actually the beginning of America's theatre history, and because of the notoriety brought on to the profession due to Lincoln's assassination, to this day there are reactions such as you have demonstrated. But it's time to move on, this is history, it's nearly a century and a half later, and I think people will appreciate reading about the Booths, perhaps for the first time, in some kind of context. They were under enormous pressure from several directions, causing events to take place the way they did. I will be interested in hearing from others on this subject, preferably those with some legitimate theatre knowledge. I'm sure that some corrections may need to be made, but deletion? I don't think so. JohnClarknew 08:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be disputing my proposed deletion of this article, I have nominated it for an articles for deletion debate. You can read and add to the discussion here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Line (shipping company)

The photograph which I took has been deleted, and I don't know why, there is no note, and I released all rights. How can it be deleted without a note as to why?

LATER: It's back. JohnClarknew 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Edits I did on 'your page' WHERE NOT vandalism. All where completely valid...and did not warrant a REVERT, CLAIMING VANDALISM. Very bad taste... especially considering the nature of your page (which is 100% VANITY). You've got information in here that is non-encyclopedic in nature, and the article was in great need of being "run through the NPOV comb". This was not only my opinion, but the opinion of other editors as well (refer back to the previous AFD discussion regarding your page). Alphageekpa 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want people to edit the article, consider moving it to your User page instead. Alphageekpa 16:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT?

Thank you for going to a talk page (yours, mine, discussion, doesn't matter.) I have this to say to you and forgive its length:

1. Please learn to spell correctly. To type "were" as "where" once is a typo, twice is carelessness or laziness or ignorance, none of which is appropriate.
2. Check the Discussion page for its history. I think your objections were already dealt with there.
3. It is already on my user page. Didn't you check it?
4. Do you have an agenda that you are not revealing? I mean, are you a lawyer (I have been accused of being anti-lawyers), or perhaps a Jehovah's Witness? Or an out-of-work actor? Or against Bloggers? Or doing this for somebody else?
5. You say my page is "100% vanity". It is not even 1% vanity. It is entirely fact-based, truthful, and therefore not subject to the laws of libel. I believe it is helpful to readers, and it is important to me that it remains "as is".
6. Is a self-written page automatically "Vanity" in your eyes? How about a notable person page written up by a fan, or a spouse, or a relative, or a friend, or a press agent, or an attorney or other paid help? Does that make it OK, and non-"Vanity" in your eyes?
7. If you feel it necessary to go after "Vanity" pages, aka unabashed undisguised self promotion of self and/or works, there are thousands to check out, especially those whose awards and titles are discussed at length to the exclusion of helpful encyclopedic knowledge of their work, ideas, personal life, marriages, mistresses, lovers, or outside interests, but because I do believe in right to privacy and I don't like confrontation and some are friends of mine, I resist the urge. I would rather others did it. But you probably won't be allowed to do it.
8. Regarding the NPOV comb, I think it is inevitable that POV creeps into pages in Wikipedia to a certain extent. For example, I was in the Merchant Navy during the Korean War, and sailed in hostile waters with Silver Line, and you will notice at the page United States Merchant Marine that I wrote a section called "Wartime Controversy". And you will notice that a certain sympathy with the plight of merchant mariners creeps in (and please give them a thought too on tomorrow's Veterans Day). Also, I wrote up a piece on Pro se's, and one might detect a certain sympathy for pro se's. Even the inclusion of an internal or external link or reference can be a form of non-NPOV. Yes, most of my contributions have a "been there done that" quality to them. When you get to my age (74), it happens. The genius of Wikipedia is that it is not your ordinary Encyclopedia, who needs another one of those? It is, instead, filling a need for people like you and me to have an opportunity to express ourselves in ways that are helpful to the worldwide community through our personal knowledge born of actual experience, so the definitions will sometimes spill out a bit beyond the frame, which is purposely left a little soft. Raw advocacy of course should certainly be kept out.
9. If I have anything to thank you for, it is that you have given me this opportunity to explain myself. I believe in transparency on an internet site like Wikipedia, and I am only sorry that so many users wish to hide their identities. I wish you well. JohnClarknew 00:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tittell Brune

Nope, I've no major qualms about the article. I just happened to come across it on Special:Newpages and had a go at tightening up the prose a bit before nominating it for featuring in Did You Know (it should appear on the Main Page later in the week.) I'm aware that my writing can be a bit dry (a nasty habit I've picked up from reading too many chemistry paper abstracts), so feel free to revert any changes I made that you feel were detrimental to the article in any way. I've no knowledge of the subject at all, so my edits should just be dotting the i's and crossing the t's. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, did Ms Brune become a fully-cloistered nun within the Fransiscan order, or merely a religious sister? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think cloistered, and she and they were obviously into privacy, and so probably never reported her death publicly. But I think I will take a trip there, it's near where I live, and find out. BTW, could you do me a favour? If you click on Roy Redgrave, I've got real factual concerns about the contributor who wrote up the original (go to history). I know some of the facts, but the facts I didn't could be fanciful or maybe not. Any way to check out the I.D. which could be anybody, and is a number that is shared? JohnClarknew 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a shared IP, belonging to Derby city council and a number of schools thereabouts. Anyone in that area could potentially have logged on using it, so it'd be impossible to narrow it down to a specific person. Per WP:BIO, you can either just delete unsourced information outright, or add {{fact}} tags to the dubious statements and see if anyone can dig up some corroboration. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 04:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put in a ^{[verification needed]} next to a statement, it appeared, then mysteriously disappeared next day. No record of it in history. JohnClarknew 08:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find out (a) whether Tittell Brune ever returned to Australia, to perform or otherwise, after she left in 1909. I can find no records. The photo I include in the article had the date "1920" written with it by the collection archiver, not by the photographer, so it's unreliable. (b) Also the date of her husband's death? Would appreciate knowing, so that it can be included. JohnClarknew 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

John Clark bio article

I made a few minor edits to your bio, mostly to add dates that I saw in your IMDB bio. Can you list any more "references" at the bottom of the page or even web links with information about your career/life? Even links to reviews would be good. That would make it easier for editors to add content and citations. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your interest. You should look at my pro se blog for my bio (not for my credits). Unfortunately, my past history, including scrap books from my professional childhood, were all stolen from me quite recently. And it's too long ago and perhaps too unimportant in history for even Google to list it. I'm thinking I would like to list my credits from my days of repertory, but am a bit afraid to do that as self entered material is too easiy deleted on the charge of "vanity". You might want to email me directly, or at my blog. JohnClarknew 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On November 23, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tittell Brune, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

GeeJo kindly nominated this page for DYK. Feel free to self-nominate, 80%+ of our entries are self-nom.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 7, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pauline Cushman, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello John. Thankyou for creating this quirky article. It earnt you top spot and the pictured slot on the update. Keep it up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybeans

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tittell Brune AGAIN

Slow down, I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to the see also section removal, I'm not sure you understand what such a section is for. They're intended to allow readers wanting to learn more about the topic to do so by clicking on the links. Do you really believe that a link to Charisma or celebrity really adds much to a person's knowledge of Ms Brune? As for the external links, I never touched any such things. Looking at the history you only added one earlier today, and it's still there. If you're experiencing things going missing with no note in the article history, it generally means you didnt submit them. Are you sure you clicked "Save page" after previewing your additions?

If you don't believe me when I say I've not made any deletions other than the see also section, ask any other administrator to check the article history. They're able to see deleted history versions and will confirm that there've been no such removals from the article history of Tittell Brune. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. (1) You state "really adds much". The word much is a loaded term. If you wish to deal in qualia, then you should also accept the theory of Information entropy. You are you and I am me, and there are millions our there with their own versions. And I say that see also links to actors and celebrities are nuanced contributions to the fuller understanding of the subject. Please familiarize yourself with applied polycontexturality as it pertains to second-order cybernetics. I am going to restore the links.

(2) I have checked the history, and it appears that the entry under references The New Age, September 10, 1910, page 442 is exactly the same as the external link Cambridge Journals, and they somehow got to be duplicated. Now, if you had noticed that, I'd have called you really smart. But I forgive you. JohnClarknew 09:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out the following: Because scholarly encyclopedias tend to have longer, essay-length articles (not the quick entry style of an Encyclopedia Britannica), you must use the index volume to find all the places your topic is mentioned.

You will find that description of an Encyclopedia in What is a Scholarly Encyclopedia? (for Art, or any Subject). I believe that Wikipedia goes beyond Encyclopedia Brittanica because its articles are written in some cases by scholars and therefore gets treatment somewhat along the lines of a scholarly encyclopedia. If you don't agree with this, I think the question should be put before the authors of the Wikipedia concept. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected. JohnClarknew 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have used a see also link which goes from the particular to the general i.e. a bio article on Tittell Brune with a link to Actor. The dispute is that I'm not allowed to do this. I maintain that Wikipedia has some of the qualities of a scholarly encyclopedia, see What is a Scholarly Encyclopedia? (for Art, or any Subject). Please give guidance. 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1 K yo cat^{¿Qué tal?•meow!} 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stainless Stephen

John, my pleasure. The nice thing about the 'fact' tag is, if you leave it there, someone keen normally comes along and fills it in for you. I couldn't find an obvious source for your quote, except buried in that blog (fair enough, but it's best to be as obvious as possible). I wouldn't say music hall is a speciality of mine, more that it found me; I began by attempting to fill in some pieces on the halls, particularly existing ones around Hackney (in London); then found some neglected people who didn't have articles; and of course for that era, many of the memories are fading fast. It was fascinating to read about Stainless, and to hear that you performed with him. I'm sure there are many more you can drag out of retirement. It was also a pleasure reading your bio. All the best. Kbthompson 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychodrama

I entered this on the discussion page of the article Psychodrama.

I observed a couple of these around 1963 at a theatre on Manhattan's West Side. Having a wife then who spent hours in psychotherapy, I was fascinated by the possibilities, because it explores, through action going forward as opposed to psychotherapy, which explores through inaction going backward, the problems people might have. As such, it became part of a backlash against psychotherapy in the 60s, which could often involve unending years out of a patient's life. The method invites the patient to "act out" in ways that are not possible in real life. An example might be to expose anti-social desires and behaviors, and "see what happens". Just as the protaganist raises the prop knife to plunge into the antagonist's chest, Moreno would yell for a role reversal, perhaps while changing the lighting from red to green. And so the subject gains insight, finding out more about hidden desires, opposing POVs, and the futility. Actors and audience volunteers entered the mix. This is a really useful exercise for actors, and it sure saves months of therapy for the subjects. It's all about being able to "act out" in a safe way. Oh, I put this here, so I don't have to act out on a Wikirobot. JohnClarknew 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Commercial vessel template

Hello. As you may know, there are a variety of infobox templates used for ocean liners; at least one of which is ill-suited to passenger vessels. As a consequence of a discussion I had with User:Ebyabe at User_talk:Ebyabe#RMS_Queen_Mary, Ebyabe has generously agreed to create a template for passenger vessels. It appears at Template:Infobox Commercial Ship. Its creator needs assistance with the fields for the template. For example, it will need a tonnage field, but would not need a displacement field. Should beam be moulded breadth, or extreme beam? Should length be pp, or oa? Given your interest in this area, would you be willing to particpate in the project? If so, go to Template talk:Infobox Commercial Ship and weigh in. It may be that different templates are needed for passenger ships (gt), freighters (dwt, net), containerships (TEU) and that one size will not fit all. Thanks for your interest. Kablammo 21:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and good luck. Kablammo 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QE

Thanks for the note-- Unfortunately I have not yet mastered adding images. I agree that one is needed. Kablammo 19:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkes Booth and citations

Takes a while to get the hang of citations and footnoting. I use the Citation Templates and put them inside ref tags. For ref tags, read through WP:FOOT. Be sure there is a reference section at the bottom with the tag "<references/>" so they show up. Fill in as much information in the template as possible. Sometimes it is tricky to get the template to do what you want - for instance, I originally filled in the wikilink to Warren Commission, but then the external link to section 7 of the report did not work. The revision was to remove the wikilink, which allowed the original url: --- link to function. That show preview button is the Key!

Anyway, looking over your talk page and user page, sounds like you have a lot to contribute, with some character to it too! Welcome aboard (assuming I predate you on the wiki, not a safe assumption). Ratagonia 07:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal observation about Where's Wiki Heading?

Nowhere else to write this, really, but I was just checking out Ricky Gervais and Extras and Larry David, and they go on and on and on with their links and become mini-books in themselves, no doubt giving away for free (by publicists?) the content of never-to-be written books on their subjects. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, they make for riveting reading (to some of us in the showbusiness arena anyway) but seem to be far from the expressed aims of the site's founders. Probably will doom the hard-copy publishing business forever.

Either admins go through many such sites with busy scissors, or the hell with it. Wiki has caught on big time and is changing as the wind is blowing. Next we'll be seeing endless video and sound downloads.

Where will it all end? I see trouble ahead. JohnClarknew 05:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Record of content from Talk page on Dziekański Tasering incident at Vancouver airport, unedited

[I am keeping the record of this discussion which took place on the talk page, perhaps inappropriately there, because I believe the tasering incident was not just about the police action, but was a wake-up call, a cautionary tale effecting all of the people involved. I well remember the July 4, 2002 incident at LAX when an American/Egyptian limo driver Hesham Mohamed Hadayet went on a shooting rampage at the El Al ticket counter, while the LA Times reported that his grand-daughter was in another part of the airport. He was taken down by a security guard. As I make clear below, nowadays, trained airport security police can themselves be lethal weapons when doing their jobs.]

Conclusions from Perspective and Hindsight

Viewed again with more facts, a little more time to think about it, and a chance to turn back the clock, it is clear that while there was a lot of avoidable blame to go around, the meaningful blames lie first with the mother, then with the airport authorities, and only last with the law enforcers. Those are the layers of blame. The victim should be exonerated completely, given he had been well over a day and a night left alone and waiting, waiting, perhaps devoid of food, water, and finally his ability to think straight (and who wouldn't do crazy behavior in our individual way with strangers' cameras following your every move, given his experience? But add the extra handicap of his linguistic isolation).

1. Did the mother, knowing her only child so well, his sense of trust and lack of any experience in the modern world of air travel, and his complete lack of the English language, arm him with a letter written in English to carry on his person which he could show to authorities? And a list of notes for him written in Polish on what to do in case of emergency? And, with her experience and knowledge of life in Canada, why did she leave the airport at all and accept the information that he was not at the airport?

2. Given failures on the part of the mother, then the next layer comes in, and those are the airport authorities. They had absolutely nothing in place to deal with this type of emergency, surely not rare in such a cosmopolitan city and port of entry as Vancouver. Do they not have a travelers welcoming desk, where the mother could have gone to give the information about her missing son, who could have been effectively tracked down? Their huge and final blunder was to call in the cops. Cops are a weapon these days, especially these days of terrorists which created rules and instructions. Procedures are in place to deal with perceived threats, in the form of a. disarm, b. secure (takedown and handcuff), and c. ask questions later. Which leads to

3. It should always be assumed that cops are trained law enforcers, and are not mentally equipped to think outside the box. In rare cases, very rare, there might be a cop among them capable of taking the time to think clearly, assume the best and not the worst, and with the courage to break the rules and check out whether there might be a simple explanation before using brute force. But don't, in fact never, bet on it. That the police were called was an admission and guidance on the part of the Vancouver airport authorities that they had done all they could to resolve the problem at all levels of problem solving and dispute resolution.

As an afterthought, the bystanders should not be absolved of guilt here. Why were some people taking pictures and videos starting several minutes before the entry of the police? Did anyone speak to him? Did they see a simple problem, and get involved on a human level? Certainly many were gawking at the spectacle, and today one hopes they are ashamed with themselves; only they know and will keep the memory. Yes, there is much to think about. As the priest said at the son's funeral, it came down to a matter of the lack of simple, human COMMUNICATION. A lesson for all of us. A future civil case in a court of law will thoroughly air the verifiable truth and meanwhile we already know the consequences. JohnClarknew 18:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of guidelines provided at WP:TALK disallowing personal essays on articles’ talk pages, I also strongly disagree with parts of the above assessment by User: JohnClarknew, especially the implication of guilt on the part of Dziekański’s mother. The list of passengers who arrived at the airport from Poland was available to YVR personnel with a click of a button. She asked for assistance, but was misinformed and sent away with nothing. Meanwhile, her son spent hours clearing Customs and Immigration unable to communicate in English and yet he was also sent away unassisted. It takes a seasoned traveler to circumvent the apathy of airport personnel, but please spare us your sense of know-how. --Poeticbent talk 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arriving plane's passenger manifests are not available at YVR or any other airport, and it is not possible to determine who got off a plane with a "click of a button." Ever tried calling an airline for such information, even while it's in the air? Neither is a list of people who cleared customs made available by a Federal Agency such as Customs and Immigration. There are issues of policy, security and privacy to contend with. The mother was asking impossible questions. She should have demanded a search, and not left the airport. Please read everything so far connected to this case. I did. It takes several hours of time. JohnClarknew 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ms Dziekański was sent home with false information about her son. Her only fault was to believe an unintended lie. Perhaps the air carrier would have been able to help her, but was she directed there at all? Anyhow, this talk page is not a place for your criticism of her actions and I'd prefer to have your narrative removed, or at least stripped of bias. --Poeticbent talk 07:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is not intended, Poeticbent, and emotions are high for the very reason that everyone knows how easily it could have been them put in the same position, not just the Polish. Perhaps the article will help serve to alert people, and good will finally come out of it. JohnClarknew 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Above comment was immediately DELETED

The following appears in the history of this page: This was done by Ckatz very quickly after I posted my comments (see the history of this page)

Reverted good faith edits by JohnClarknew; Rv. - respect your opinions, but unfortunately they have to be removed as this page is for discussion of the article, not the issue. ----Ckatz

I am appalled that Ckatz should instantly DELETE my above entry, which I certainly wrote for the purpose of improving the article for future contributions since new facts have been revealed. He, unfortunately for him, reveals his NPOV problem by writing this on his user page:

Canadian issues . . . the Vancouver project . . . I'm also proofreading, revising and updating pages as I find them, and doing the occasional bit of work on vandalism patrol.

I too am Canadian. I have put back my comments, which I believe conforms to Wiki guidelines, and will appeal for admin intervention if this sort of thing goes on. Discussion pages are meant to be just that, fairly sacrosanct, absent deliberate distortion or gibberish. Comments by others are welcome here of course, but this page should stay as is. I have asked for it to be put on the article watch list. JohnClarknew 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has been known to ramble off-topic on talk pages, I generally agree that talk page comments should only be deleted if they are malicious or offensive to the point of being libelous. However, for some context, Ckatz also removed this, which is cause for offense much more than your comments. Taken together however, both have absolutely nothing to do with the article, and violate WP:TALK, which says (in bold font): "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." It also says: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." What you wrote is your analysis of the incident and doesn't refer to article at all. As to whether it will inform future editing of the article, you don't indicate how that might be, or even mention what the new information is that you referred to. In any case, I think you're reading more ill-intent into Ckatz's actions than they deserve. He or she has been around for a long time and hasn't shown any sign of a POV agenda in the past year or so that I've been doing this. bobanny (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out your comment that was deleted, and don't you think your opinion was offered using an unnecessary expletive and there was a racist element in the last sentence? Why don't you resubmit it, and remove those bits?

I completely disagree that my comments have nothing to do with the article. Would people be happier if I stated that the police are being unfairly targeted (would you criticize a shark for attacking a herring?) and Mr. Dziekański unfairly targeted for reacting to his situation in an understandable way, and the mother coming out squeaky clean when in fact she could have better prepared her son so that none of this would have happened? And if I stated that the article might well be cleaned up and edited bearing these comments in mind? I don't think these points for future editing were obscure. The police seem at the moment to be taking the biggest hit, almost to the point of protecting the reputations of everyone else, and I tried to level the field. And new information is coming out regularly, with magazine and newspaper interviews here and abroad, and more will spill out at the future trial. This is still a topical and controversial subject. JohnClarknew 22:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Clark. I think you are a bit confused. Bobanny was pointing out that CKatz had (appropriately) deleted an obnoxious comment. An IP address wrote it, not Bobanny. I am afraid that I too agree that your commentary is not particularly appropriate for the talkpage. Rightly or wrongly, this is not the place to discuss who is responsible, but to talk about what notable, reliably sourced and verifiable information should be included in the article. If the BC premier or other notable person had made such suggestions, then sure, it could be discussed and suggested here. But as it is, it was your analysis and didn't really seem to contribute to the article development. BTW, you can sign your edits with four little tildes ~ , which will sign your posts for you nicely. Or you can use the little signature button in the blue bar above the editing window (which is a lot easier!). --Slp1 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent)John, apologies if I wasn't clear enough when removing your text. As others have pointed out, it is not a question of what you said, but where you said it. The article talk page is for discussions about the article, not the subject of the article. That is to say, you should not be offering your personal assessment of the situation. (If, however, you were describing an article that you had read which supported the same assertions, that would be fair game as it would offer new sources for expanding the article's coverage.) It is an important distinction, and the reason for it is to ensure that article talk pages do not become discussion forums about the topic. If you post your opinions, someone else then comes along and posts their opinions in response, and so on. Eventually (or quite quickly, in the case of a controversial subject) the talk page would be overwhelmed by the larger debate about the issue, making it difficult to discuss the actual article we are supposed to be writing. On a related note, I really wish you hadn't taken such a cheap shot by attempting to portray my actions as a "POV" issue. However, I'll choose to attribute it to your apparent frustration - although it would be better to ask me personally first. My decision to intervene and follow up on established Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages had nothing to do with your opinions, only with your well-intentioned yet erroneous choice to write them here rather than at a more appropriate forum for discussion. I hope that this eases your concerns, and helps you to better understand the situation. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your explanation baffling. This is not a finished article, so how do you separate an article from its subject when it's still developing, and some rewriting might be in order? The logic escapes me. And where is a "more appropriate forum"? But I am relieved to find that your deletion was not a POV issue. When such sweeping action is taken without discussion, suspicions tend to get aroused. Bobanny, I apologize for attributing the bad stuff to you, your comment was confusing, I now see it referred to an anonymous IP address. Slp1, I always do do 4 tildes. I'll do it now, there. JohnClarknew 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnClarknew (talk • contribs)

Well, if that's not clear, all I can do is suggest that you read through Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, which state:

"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."

and

"Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)."

Hopefully, you'll find what you need in there. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Ckatz, you withheld in your above remarks the following which also appears in the Talkpage Guidelines:

" ... However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ... When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

I think that applies here. I think that the article should be tagged as a developing story. And a better and fuller introduction could serve as a reminder that there is much still to be told in this developing story, it's not just about the "tazer incident". The role of the mother seems to be dealt with only in interviews she has given on television. Of course there is great sympathy for her. I am waiting to find some written record of how she prepped her son for his arrival, if at all, to be cited. Then the role of the police in what they may have thought was an escalating terrorist situation will probably not be revealed until time of trial. A lot of people are not talking, and may not until/unless subpoena time. BTW, fear not an overlong discussion page. Have you noticed the number and length of archived talkpages elsewhere? Wiki servers must be enormous. JohnClarknew (talk • contribs)

If some Freudian analysis blaming Dziekański's mother gets published in a non-fringe source, we can discuss it here. Until then, it's not our job to develop one. I suggest we all stop this discussion. If you want to expand the article John, it would give some focus and relevance to subsequent talk page discussions. bobanny (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freudian???--JohnClarknew (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use WP software for a book I want to write?

Not frequently asked but yes its is all open source. The only barriers are you own ability to run the right kind of server etc but "Wikia" may do this for you if the project meets some criteria. --BozMo talk 07:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FROM THE HELP DESK: I'd like to use Wikipedia software and tools to organize material for a book I like the way it works. The idea of writing drafts, editing, making notes, creating and using "See also" and "External links" (never using the WP site) would be very helpful in the early research stage. Of course, the final draft would be copied to my word processing software for a last edit and to print it out. If so, can I use it for free? (I'd be happy to make a contribution.) If it's copyrighted, I'd be prepared to pay a license fee. Can this be done, and if so, where and how? --JohnClarknew (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The software used by Wikipedia is called MediaWiki. It's free software and it is available to download. See the MediaWiki home page for information and download links. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to have a look to Comparison of wiki farms, if you wish to create your own wiki. I personally tried http://www.editthis.info/ (using mediawiki) and http://wikispaces.com/ (not using mediawiki) and found them quite nice. Note that Wikipedia (the website) is not a webhost and can't therefore be used to host your drafts. -- lucasbfr talk 11:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see: b:Wiki Science/How to start a wiki mw:Manual:Wiki on a stick - how to set up your own (free) personal wiki with MediaWiki. Creating your own wiki to work on a one-off book project may be a bit of overkill, particularly if you lack the skills of a system administrator; you might also look for existing public wikis you might use. Privacy would be a concern with many public wikis, so carefully check the type of access control a public wiki would give you. You might also look at the MoinMoin wiki software. It's somewhat different than the MediaWiki software which powers Wikipedia. The Linux Documentation Project uses MoinMoin to enable their volunteer writers to edit DocBook documents (namely, the Linux manuals). DocBook is a markup language for generating books. If you used MoinMoin plus DocBook, you could do all your editing in a wiki, and get straight to printable output. That "fixes" one of the limitations of MediaWiki, that MediaWiki was never intended for writing books. --Teratornis (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for all your help and suggestions --JohnClarknew (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced it with a link to the museum which owns the print. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Turner

I came across this story at Slamdance and became fascinated and hooked with it, because the lives of the concerned people seem to parallel my own, which thank God didn't include murder and suicide (so far I might add.) Yes, I have a living son I named Zachary, and an ex-wife who is Canadian. I hear from neither of them. So I wrote it up as best I could under Zachary Turner, surprised that it hadn't already been covered.JohnClarknew (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to find that this subject has aroused controversy. A wonderful film and a terrific book of explanation were written by Zachary's family members through his father, who did not even know of Zachary's future existance. I insist that the article should exist under Zachary's name alone, and that the descriptive book and movie makers might consider creating their own pages. Currently these commercial efforts are pushed to the fore. I hope the WP admins will rule in favor of Zach. Meanwhile, this case draws attention to the evils of Family Court and the many lawyers and other "experts" who appear to think they are really in the business of causing money-making (for them) problems. This is international in scope. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stage or screen

Your recent edits to the Actors' Equity Association article have emphasized that the union deals with stage and not screen. I don't think there was a lack of clarity in that regard, since the last sentence of the first paragraph delineates that the union is for stage actors and managers. It also tends to describe what the union is not, which isn't necessary. Later references to actors within the text can be assumed to deal with the stage since the union deals with stage personnel. You could certainly fix the text box to refer to stage actors instead of simply actors, an oversight on someone's part and maybe your initial reason for concern. I also would recommend against suggesting that the union has jurisdiction over things. Purview might be a better choice. --Pat (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pat, I added stage in the text box, thanks for your suggestion. The 3 performer unions are often at loggerheads, with sometimes jurisdictional overlaps, so I took pains to emphasize the fact that their purview is the theatre only. Many of us actors have to pay dues to all three, unlike the UK which only has one union which covers everything, including directors. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started my Wikipedia hobby by editing stage articles for some reason. I have no particular expertise. I took on the challenge of adding sources to the Julie Andrews article for a while. I found she had received the SAG Life Achievement Award and there was no page for the award, so that got me looking at other actors and other awards. I eventually wandered in other directions, but I continue to have a soft spot for the stage topic within Wiki because of those early days. I wish you well with your editing. --Pat (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Line (shipping company)

The present image size is good. Your edit makes the image too large. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to be of assistance, I saw your 'discussion' with User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and agreed with you completely! Paste (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Clark

Hello. Long time no see. Check out Signor Brocolini, real name John Clark. :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Central Airport

Perhaps it's time to split Grand Central Airport into an article of its own. It's beginning to overwhelm the Glendale article, and it certainly deserves an article by itself. Would you be interested in doing that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a go. I'm waiting delivery of a book for further source material. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I wrote the original material on the airport in the Glendale article. I learned about it as I researched it. I'm glad to see the topic get the attention it deserves. I have a question about the title of the article that is best addressed at Talk:Grand Central Terminal (Glendale). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are right about changing the name. I don't know whether to delete it and copy to the new name, or some other way. It is already on Google and needs a redirect from Terminal. Could you do this? JohnClarknew (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to learn how to do it myself without screwing up, and did it the some other way, including the double redirects. I think it's fine now. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keach Freeman source

You have to have the 2-disc Special Edition DVD. I don't think it's on the 1-disc version since it's on the 2nd disc with the Lipton interview. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial movies

Thx for the nice edits, and expanding the artilce. Kudos! Luigibob (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk

I've answered your question at the Help desk. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bart, but it didn't do it. Please see my response at the Help desk JohnClarknew (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Mary mccarthy 1379697f.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mary mccarthy 1379697f.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the picture from the Daily Telegraph article, and their caption credited Reuters. However, I thought that a "fair use" tag would cover it, there being no non-copyright pictures to be found, which I stated. However, I yield to your decision. A shame though, it's a great face to put with the article. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying articles that end in a bracket

I came by your old question [1]. It's not a page for questions so nobody answered and I removed the question. The issue depends on the software people use to process the url, for example an email client. It may be different how your software and the recipient's software treat url's but if you are still interested, you can try using percent-encoding like at Help:URL#URLs in external links. For example, replace http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Laches_(equity) with http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Laches_(equity%29 PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Matthews siblings

Jessie Matthews was the sixth of eleven surviving children out of sixteen -- according to biographer Thornton (in addition to her own autobiography). Are you sure this distinction merits changing the number of siblings as such? Igenlode (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting point. When did the "unsurviving" children die? At childbirth? Maybe an aborted pregnancy? Doesn't say. My feeling is that a family's child siblings are comprised of surviving children, capable of interacting. And here's the quote from the Daily Mail, reference #7 at the bottom of the article, as a result of an interview with Thornton:

Yet at the beginning, Jessie Margaret Matthews, born on March 11, 1907 in a cramped Soho flat above a butcher's shop, sixth of the 11 children of a Berwick Street Market costermonger, was a figure of total innocence...

I actually met her many years ago. Here were the circumstances (from my blog of memories) Jessie Matthews remembered JohnClarknew (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for dropping this; I've been away.

I was principally puzzled by the citation of 'biographer Thornton' as a basis for making the change, since what Thornton's biography actually states is (p5) "Jane [Matthews] would have sixteen children in all, but only eleven of them would survive to maturity. This is the story of the seventh child."

As one can note from the use of seventh rather than sixth here, her next eldest sister Margaret died of diptheria, it is implied before Jessie was born. Thornton gives specific names and birthdates for only five of the following siblings -- Lena (1909), Eva (1911), Eddie (1916), Ray (a girl) (1917) and Harry (1919) -- meaning that four further unspecified babies must have died after Jessie's birth. I would guess from the gap in the cited dates that two or three of them probably came between Eva and Eddie in age, and I would guess also from the absence of any reference to the deaths that, like Margaret, they probably died at a very young age and never really 'interacted' with Jessie in the way of, for example, Lena and Eva with whom as a child she had to share a bed.

(What Jessie Matthews herself states on the subject, while discussing her mother in her autobiography Over My Shoulder (p15), is "Her heart was big enough for all her children, and before she'd finished she had sixteen, although only eleven of us survived.")

I was interested by the suggestion that the 'infamous' Daily Mail article (one of the few online sources discussing Miss Matthews, and as such tending to be widely cited) is the result of a tabloid interview with Michael Thornton rather than a column actually penned by him; this would explain something that has puzzled me, namely its frankly salacious tone when compared to his published biography. Not to mention the puzzling fact that at least one of its innuendoes (as to the paternity of her child) appears to be flatly contradicted by dates and contract details published in the earlier work, of which Thornton undoubtedly had been aware: given the lengths that she went to in order to fit a pregnancy into her film schedule, there is no way that it can have been anything other than a very-much-planned baby, let alone the offspring of an affair almost three years earlier. (He also gives dates for her extremely brief sojourn in Hollywood -- her ill-fated visit to the USA principally centred around the Broadway stage -- which seem to imply that any potential relationship with "bisexual Tyrone Power", never mind the suggested "lovers" in the plural -- would have had to take place within a matter of days at most.)

But I have to say that given the similar snide tone of his obituary of Evelyn Laye for the Guardian ("Gaiety Girl", 19 Dec 1996) and the distinct note of innuendo in his latest Mail contribution, I feel it's more probable that his interests have simply gone downmarket in the interim. Or else that he is more inhibited in his subject matter when his subjects are, as Miss Matthews was at the time of publication in 1974, still alive to read it. I'm still bemused by those of the allegations that appear to be disproved by his own prior research, though...

My thanks for the link to your personal Jessie Matthews anecdote (although I suspect the lady was being a little unfair to husband Brian Lewis, from whom she had separated before ever moving to Australia). I observe you have had your own run-in with the Daily Mail! Igenlode (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interesting comments, Igenlode. I have her book, somewhere, I did read it long ago. I think she was capable of, well, shading her truth. Why don't you make the corrections to the article? Perhaps the better way would be to make your comments on the discussion page. There they will stay, but on the article page, they may be viewed as original material, and risk being deleted. I read already your contribution on the discussion page about her correct name. JohnClarknew (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. As with the question of her name (I'm now confident about this, as she is apparently 'Jessie' on her actual OBE!) I hesitate to alter the contributions of others without at least a tacit approval -- well, when it's a question of debatable fact, anyway.Igenlode (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Junior Magazine

The article Junior Magazine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article looks like WP:AUTOBIO for John Clark

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and fixed. Thanks, Alexandr. Sharpeyed. My, you're going to be busy. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alien assessments.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alien assessments.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Clark marriage announcement.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clark marriage announcement.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added detail to the above 2 images to explain why they should not be treated as "bot generated orphaned images." I have deleted the tags.

BTW, you don't need to upload an article in order to use it as a citation. I don't get involved with deleting copyrighted material, but I doubt that whose who do would view it as qualifying for the fair use exemption. Will Beback talk

Hi Will, welcome back. It's true that a reference to a publication without showing the image is usually enough, 'tho it is subject to abuse because it's seldom checked, especially books, which are not on the internet, a checker would have to buy the book. Anyway, I feel strongly that the 2 examples above qualify under the special case rule, as the cases are somewhat controversial. Actors Equity actually deleted and rewrote the article in order to avoid revealing what the Times reported. Anyway, these 2 cases are now moot, because I see that the citations have now become only the first few lines allowed by the Times, inviting the reader to pay in order to read the REST of the item.

Darn those media companies that charge for their content! You can read more about the fair use exemption to US copyright law at Fair use and WP:FU. Will Beback talk 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if there's a short excerpt which addresses the exact assertion being cited then it's OK to add that copy into the citation template itself using the "|quote=" parameter. For example:

"Anti-Alien Bias by Actors Equity Charged in Lynn Redgrave Case". New York Times. February 19, 1978. The actress's husband, John Clark, who is an American, first brought her claim against the union.

Though in this example it might be best to elide the part about your nationality unless we're going to change the bio to match. Will Beback talk 19:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opt out of Bot messages

{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}

Orphaned non-free image File:Clark marriage announcement.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clark marriage announcement.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your identity.

Hi, I deleted the image File:LynnRedgrave.jpg - it looked like a scan from a movie poster and therefore probably under copyright. You'd marked it as your own work, which you were releasing under a cc licence, but I have to confess I found that unlikely. Unfortunately many people scan images and think this constitutes their "own work".

However, since then, I've looked at your userpage and I understand that you claim to be the late actress's ex-husband. If that claim is true, then we have more reason to believe that the image is your own. Unfortunately, we can't simply take identity on trust. We got too many imposters, particularly of people who've been in the public light. I would invite you to e-mail our otrs service infowikimedia.org and provide some evidence of your identity and your ownership of the image, if you wish it restored.--Scott Mac 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have corresponded with this user previously and can vouch for his identity. Will Beback talk 18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same here: I can't vouch from personal interview that he is the same John Clark as Lynn Redgrave's ex-husband, but I had no reason to doubt it when we corresponded earlier. And, ironically, the John Clark (actor/director) page itself was proposed for deletion in 2006 on the very grounds of having been created by User:JohnClarknew -- there was clearly no question of questioning his identity at that point. Igenlode (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! How do I provide my I.D. to your satisfaction, Scott? My driver's licence? My passport? I used to be a professional photographer, but I can't prove it. I am at a loss. But I think you should restore the pic I took of Lynn, I took many of her. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you e-mail permissions@wikimedia.org , they will be able to verify your release of copyright on this, and issue a ticket number to prevent any further issues. I'm just a little curious why the image was described as "Lynn Redgrave as The Happy Hooker" - that does tend to imply an official image?--Scott Mac 16:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did it as you asked. A shame to remove her picture at this time especially (re. her death). I still don't understand why I am being questioned on this. Check Lynn's site Lynn Redgrave. She herself labelled this picture as having been taken by me. I mean, who's phishing who, here? Did you know that there are those who question Shakespeare's authorship of his works, like, who really wrote them? Some say it was somebody else named William Shakespeare, pretending to be the other William Shakespeare. (BTW, how do I know you are the REAL Scott MacDonald/Scott Mac? You could be an imposter. Prove you are who you say you are. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article John Clark (actor/director), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Memphisto (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My answer

Thank you for your patronising use of Wikipedia guidelines, referring to my page. My answer to you, an alias shrouded in anonymity, lies in the auxilliary verb used by you and Wikipedia guidelines on the subject of POV. That word is MAY and MIGHT. And I maintain that there is no POV in my page. Perhaps I am unusual as a "notable", a contributor (2,200 times), and as a writer, in exercising great caution when supplying facts for my page, and doing my best to provide good links and backup and citations.

Why you zero in on me, after my page has remained untouched for so long, I don't know for sure. But there is a serious threat from fans of certain celebrities who take it upon themselves to edit in the best interests of their heroes. I don't know if you share in their apotheoses. I find it interesting that you have added 3 Lynn Redgrave obits on my page, not on hers. Critics of me have increased since my ex-wife's death. But I shall do what it takes to defend myself and my material. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership and autobiography

Regarding your comment on User talk:Memphisto:

So you think it's fine to edit my page and edit my talk page? We're dealing with fan factors here, my friend. Are you on a mission? So edit away! Have fun! And when you're through, I shall remove your edits, most of them anyway.

First, it's not your page. The material belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation: we donate our words when we press the "save page" button. Every editor has the same ability to edit it, even you. However ownership of articles is not allowed. As for restoring information, anything that is properly sourced, adheres to the neutral point of view, and otherwise follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be restored. Anything that doesn't meet those standards shouldn't be. Wikipedia should not be used to advocate for or against any cause or person. Will Beback talk 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I take it that when you say "even you", you are not being sly. Now, my use of the word "my" as in "my page" is a shorthand identifier for the page which is about me. Surely you understand that. But I don't agree that anybody can edit, say, my user page, even though it may belong to the Foundation which provides it, and should not be editing discussion pages either, without exceptional reason.

I agree with your comment wholeheartedly, and shall endeavor to uphold these principles. My point is that editors should act more like impartial judges exercising reasonable discretion, not like lawyers who, by definition, advocate a point of view. JohnClarknew (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it'd be best to avoid that usage, unless you're referring to user:JohnClarknew. Referring to the John Clark (actor/director) biography with a possessive tends to imply possession. But I'm glad you're approaching it with a positive outlook. Will Beback talk 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some answers

Hey John. As well as your talk page question I also noticed some outstanding questions/issues on the article talk. So here's, hopefully, some useful answers.

[Talk:John_Clark_(actor/director)#Photo|Here on the talk page]] there was some confusion over the word "article". Generally speaking we will pretty much exclusively use the word article to refer to the wiki article whilst the news articles would be referred to as sources.
In terms of Redgrave; there is probably too much detail in the article about here; it's not a dual biography after all. In particular the "marriage to Redgrave" section needs refocusing from being oriented around the marriage to describing the events of that time period (I may have a go at that in a sec)
In terms of teamplates. Help:Templates should give you some overview. The template you want is cite web - that page should detail how to use the template. In addition if you go to Special:Preferences and go into the "Gadgets" tab you should see a gadget called "refTools". If you tick the box and save it should add a "Cite" option to the wiki editor (that appears when you edit the page); that provides a number of tools for citing content correctly.

Give it a shot; there are plenty of people watching the page to show you any mishaps :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, tom JohnClarknew (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

People get frustrated and say things in the heat of anger; however Memphisto removed the content fairly quickly, one assumes as he cooled off. That doesn't defend the behavior but there is no need to restore the comments - the diffs exist and if you want to report him to the relevant noticeboards then it is fine to just use them :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree with you, Errant. Content on a talk page should be edited or removed at the peril of the remover - which you have also now become. I see that there have been further edits on this talk page. Are you an administrator? I don't see your name listed in this article. LIST OF ADMINISTRATORS. What was removed were my entries concerning the editing of the article. I believe the article is better served by not deleting content and/or sources. I am claiming exception to the WP cautions against autobiographical articles. You will note that they are not forbidden, just not advised. Again, I claim exception, and when I ask for page protection, it will be with that claim. I am copying this to your talk page. You are obviously an ally and protector of Memphisto's efforts to discredit me. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks against both myself and User:Memphisto as you have done on Talk:John_Clark_(actor/director) and User_talk:Tmorton166. Examples of inappropriate conduct include the accusations of censorship and collusion you made and general attacks (e.g. comment about naivety, attacks on our motives). Please focus on discussing specific content and not the editors. In addition I ask you to check out my other contributions; as you can see I edit on an extensive array of topics, as such I hope you can see that John_Clark_(actor/director) is not part of any particular agenda I have to discredit you. I would ask you to retract your comments to that effect. We are all volunteers here; trying to create an accurate, verified, neutral encyclopaedia. Note I will also be warning Memphisto for the comment he left. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. You avoid answering my question: Are you an administrator? 2. I ask you to check out my other contributions; as you can see I too edit on an extensive array of topics, as such I hope you can see that John_Clark_(actor/director) is part of the particular agenda I have to discredit your and Memphisto's edits. I would ask you to retract your comments about me. We are all volunteers here; trying to create an accurate, verified, neutral and balanced encyclopaedia. 3. You are too clever in your use of WP tools for your own good. I do not believe that Memphisto edits in good faith. I sort of think that you do, but you back him up on all his edits giving a collaborative impression, and impression is what counts. Personal attack? That is a nice buzz-word, but what does it mean? To question a user's motives is fair game, and should not be deleted using that tool. You will notice that I have NEVER deleted anything on the talk page, even when it is detrimental to me. 4. I notice that many hi-handed changes and deletions are made by you and Memphisto without prior discussion on the talk page, and without adequate explanation in the history pages, as required by WP guidelines. 5. You keep making excuses for Memphisto. Why? Let him plead his own cause. 6. I ask you, again, to re-read WP:DR. 7. Enjoy your trip to Croatia. I hope you are taking Memphisto with you. That would be nice for both of you, and you can discuss me over a few drinks. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is part of the particular agenda I have to discredit your and Memphisto's edits - if your aims are to discredit me I am afraid I no longer wish to engage with you over any other issue than content disputes. To question a user's motives is fair game; no it is not. I ask you, again, to re-read WP:DR. 7; I have askec you numerous times to bring up specific issues regarding content on the talk page. Unless you bring them up it is hard to dispute them. I feel you are now being disruptive and I am afraid I can no longer engage with you over this. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. But you will feel frustrated. Why don't you and your friend Memphisto turn your talents elsewhere? Check out Cary Elwes (vanity?), Cindy Adams, Laura Schlessinger (encyclopedic?), Barry Morse (sources, vanity?), Mel Brooks (sources, encyclopedic?), Ronald Goldman (sources?), Jesse Jackson (encyclopedic?)... a random list, but you get the idea. You should edit and delete - you know how to do that, do it like you do with me. Instead of tagging them with requests for a source, which is normal procedure, just do your editing and deletes on them. But you won't. I think that's called discrimination JohnClarknew (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your reply here I don't think we can continue a particularly constructive discussion - from your above post it appears you consider an administrator in some way authoritative. This is not necessarily the case but I feel it would be beneficial for some outside input on this; to that end I have opened an ANI discussion thread so uninvolved admins can take a look and help out. If you feel my conduct is in question (as you have implied so far) then that is a good place to raise those issues so others can review mine and Memphisto's behaviour. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Tmorton, in keeping with his errant ways, has collapsed. Collapsed, that is, this discussion on his user page. However, one can click on it and read it still. He accuses me of "ranting". I don't think I have ever "ranted". Not my style. But he did avoid my challenge, that he edit other far more egregious articles than mine, using the same standards he used on my page, but no response. I did wish him a pleasant holiday in Croatia. JohnClarknew (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information you may need

Jonh, I've compiled a list of links you may find useful in terms of progressing the points you made to me on talk pages (i.e. regarding you claims for exception, complaints about conduct of other editors and requests for page protection). It does not seem constructive to continue the conversation we were having; particularly as there is nowhere near enough people to build consensus for your exception. I hope they are useful:

WP:RFPP is a noticeboard to request page protection
To claim a BLP exception and enforce Auto-biographical (i.e. not independently verifiable) corrections to the article you could try these venues:
- The BLP noticeboard
- The OTRS ticket system (which will put you in touch with a volunteer who can verify your identity and handle any complaints)
WP:AN/I is the admin noticeboard for reporting user conduct (you may also try WP:AN but that is less trafficked)

Please review the relevant policy and posting guidelines before using those pages. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing, and how to create inline sources (new to me, and tricky) is appreciated, believe me. And BTW, I'm John, not Jonh. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your article

Hi, John. I took a look at your article. Mostly, the editors are improving the quality of the article. Most of the stuff that they deleted was referenced to your self-published blog. If you want to re-introduce information about your divorce, etc. You need to reference it to independent WP:Reliable sources, like newspaper articles. But, frankly, I think what they did is really OK, and that the stuff they deleted wasn't encyclopedic. It does say that the divorce was acrimonious, and everyone knows that the man gets thrown out of his house in a divorce and that it is all a huge waste of money. Here is how I like to think about Wikipedia articles: "In 30 years, what will an uninvolved reader interested in this person's biography most want to know?" Anything else that you want to say, you can say on your User Page instead. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more going on, er, I don't know your first name, Ssilvers. Also, what I have is a website, not a blog. Check out my contributions page [2], and click on some things there. The problem arises because of the cherry-picking of inflammatory articles in the press. For example, the divorce was not acrimonious at all in the sense that we were not warring over anything. It was the corrupt judge who threw me out, not her. But you believe it was, because of what you read. This was a war between me and the bench! I could go on and on with examples, but I don't want to seem contentious for the sake of it, or boring to you. But, I do believe that what I read in a dictionary or an encyclopedia should be articles that strive for the truth, not impressions or takes, or distortions of the truth. Anyway, my friend, take care. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Showcase theatre (performing arts group)

A tag has been placed on Showcase theatre (performing arts group) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this today on my talk page, and went to look at the article considered not notable and subject to a speedy deletion, and it's gone! How long was it up there, was there any discussion, and why is the subject of Showcase Theatre not worthy of inclusion? This is a large part of current theatre in this economy, free to audiences, and a practice platform for actors to show off their wares. Many people attend showcase theatre, and may wish to know more about it. You say it may be contested by placing a tag "hangon" above the article, but it's too late to do that. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hello, JohnClarknew. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Shakespeare for My Father/Memphisto

By policy, there is only one version of an Wikipedia article. Alternate versions written to express different views are called POV forks which are not allowed. I understand that you disagree with other editors about the content of an article. There are various ways of resolving content disputes. See WP:DR. You can ask for input from other editors in a number of ways, such as filing a request for comment or posting to a relevant noticeboard. Informal mediation might be another helpful technique. But just reverting your preferred version of the article into the talk page over and over is not helpful and is just going to lead to more frustration. Please let me know if I can do anything to help. Will Beback talk 21:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this are uncivil and unacceptable.[3] See WP:NPA. I strongly suggest that you step back from editing articles in which you have an emotional investment and are unable to maintain neutrality. Will Beback talk 04:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, your take on me, that I have an "emotional investment" when I edit is untrue and uncalled for. I'm way beyond that, and have a website with instructions for self-represented pro ses in court. Emotional investment is to always be avoided, it is a trap. And so should lawyers, where possible. However, I wish to bring to your attention that the actions of Memphisto border on not just harassment of me, but more, a stalking of me. He is not an admin, they do not indulge in this kind of behavior, and ~~If this goes on, he will hear from my lawyer~~ - and it will be well outside the boundaries of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, if you prefer, I can extract the material excluded from the article, so it appears on the talk page, but not presented in the form of the original entry. It maintains NPOV, and deals with the creation and writing of the show. Tell me if you want me to do that. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats on Wikipedia lead to immediate, indefinite blocks until the threats are resolved. You are not permitted to edit Wikipedia while you pursue, or threaten to pursue, legal actions against other editors. This is a very serious and strictly enforced policy. WP:NLT. Note that it is not intended to prevent you from doing what you think is legally necessary. It's just that lawsuits and collegial editing are incompatible.

Regarding the other editor, I'll ask him to disengage, just as I've asked you to disengage from topics where you have a close association. .

To make that request clearer, I strongly suggest you stop editing any articles which contain the name "Redgrave". That includes the John Clark biography. If any edits need to be made, other than to remove vandalism or flagrant bias, you can ask me or make a request on the talk page, or at W:BLPN, or through WP:OTRS. Will Beback talk 07:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, does that include writing articles in which I have a strong emotional investment? You probably don't remember this, but some years ago, you invited me to write an article about the old Glendale airport. Now, as a pilot myself, and the owner of 2 planes which a family court judge caused me to lose, I have a strong emotional investment in flying and anything to do with planes. Here's the article Grand Central Airport (United States). Judge for yourself, is it riddled with NPOV violations? And another article I wrote, brought about by my emotional investment in my love of the sea. I served on the Silverwalnut, a ship in the line of the Silver Line. So I wrote up this article: Silver Line (shipping company). My question to you is, should I have not written these 2 articles because they violate your sense of NPOV and emotional investment? And, BTW, thanks for your input regarding Mr. Memphisto, and asking him to disengage. This may well have the effect of removing any threat towards him that you perceive from me. As I said, "if this goes on ..." JohnClarknew (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are varying levels of emotional involvement. If you feel as strongly about an airport as you do about your ex-wife then maybe you shouldn't work on that topic either. But I'd guess that it wouldn't be a problem. Also, please remove the text above which says, "if this goes on he will hear from my lawyer". Will Beback talk 20:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your new note.[4] I posted a request on Memphisto's page the other day, and the only edit he's made since then is to Helene Tursten.[5] His only involvement with you seems to be about your editing of Redgrave-related articles. If you stop editing those then there probably won't be anymore problems. Will Beback talk 08:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said to me above Regarding the other editor, I'll ask him to disengage, just as I've asked you to disengage from topics where you have a close association. What you actually said to him was I think it would be helpful if you disengaged from the conflict over Talk:Shakespeare for My Father. That isn't a judgment of your behavior, just of the overall situation. Will, you are an admin, and therefore what you do and say has some weight, and I know that you maintain an NPOV in this situation. Memphisto has an MO where I am concerned (Why? I'm only guessing, but assume he is a fan of my ex), and I wish you would be clearer in your message to him. [6]. Please clarify your intent to him on his user-page as you expressed it to me above, that he disengage from editing topics where I have a close association, or I know that his actions concerning me will persist. "Probably" won't do it. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that. Meantime, do you agree to disengage from directly editing articles about yourself and your family? Will Beback talk 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you propose that the following would have been fixed without my intervention, and following your guidelines? You will find this at [7]:-

Please note that a user has edited Lynn's marriage information with content that is not NPOV. It appears that this user, [[8]] has subscribed for the sole purpose of making these entries. I have changed what she tried to do. Ho-hum. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to the version before jodyleethomas had at it :) what you wrote self-references the wiki which is generally avoided --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, tom. It's comforting to think I have my own watchdog, following my every move. I'm sorry I had to be the one to catch this lady's egregious editing. Perhaps you could watch these 2 articles (mine and Lynn's) to prevent it happening again, so I don't have to. ;) JohnClarknew (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have them both on the watchlist - but bear in mind that I also have about 1500 other articles on there :) so quite often I miss stuff as it goes past :) --Errant' [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly comment, Tom, and Will? Will you be my watchdogs? JohnClarknew (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I wrote above:

If any edits need to be made, other than to remove vandalism or flagrant bias, you can ask me or make a request on the talk page, or at W:BLPN, or through WP:OTRS.

See WP:AUTO and WP:COI for more information. Will Beback talk 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My entire discussion page has been wiped out by somebody. Do you consider that vandalism? I just discovered a BLP discussion on Jimbo Wales's user talk page, and what is discussed are many of the problems I have with POV editing. Henceforth, I shall use that as my guide and reference for what I should do. You both might want to read it. [9]. JohnClarknew (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "my entire discussion page" I assume you're referring to the discussion page of John Clark (actor/director). It was archived. The contents are at Talk:John Clark (actor/director)/Archive 1. I don't consider that vandalism. The discussions on JW's talk page are often interesting, but they are not official in any way. I still haven't gotten an answer about disengaging from topics where you have a COI. Will Beback talk 23:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever. So it's hidden from immediate view, and I understand the purpose. Well, at least it cautions not to edit the page, so that's a positive. I don't have a conflict of interest where my life is concerned. You provide the conflict, not me. So Jimbo's discussions are not "official"? I don't know what that means. Official in what way? JohnClarknew (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really follow your logic here. Regarding JW's talk page, I mean that it is not a policy or guideline page. Will Beback talk 01:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for bringing your case to my attention, as it sounds like exactly the sort of case that can illustrate very well why some policies need to grow and change.

As for me, I'm very opposed to putting the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" on the main article page of any biography. It does serve a useful purpose (and not all or always negative!) on the discussion page, which editors will see. But it looks absurdly accusatory to me in the article itself. I shall work on changing this practice.

I have not studied your case deeply enough to know what it is all about, so I offer no opinion on the validity of your edits. But I did appreciate very much what you were saying about the complex problem of bad or sloppy media who may very well be, at this late date, entirely uninterested in doing proper research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be funny when I say that I think of you much like Robin Williams's character as the teacher Keating in Dead Poets Society. So I stand on my desk and salute you. "Oh Captain, my captain". And I thank you for your response. JohnClarknew (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we keep it civil please?

Saying "bite me" to another editor [10] is not really a good idea. We can disagree, it happens all the time, but we don't have to resort to childish taunting. Such comments serve only to inflame the situation and are inherently unhelpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Childish taunting? Really, Beetlebrox. Here's the meaning. And I'd say it was an effective answer to WhatamIdoing's ignorant accusation towards me, which you quote above. Please retain a NPOV towards me, which you are not showing. JohnClarknew (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the meaning of "bit me." I'm also aware that it is something twelve year olds say to one another on the playground. If you want to act like a child instead of an adult that is your prerogative, but don't be surprised if it makes everyone less receptive to what you have to say. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Beeblebrox, it's not "bit me", it's "bite me". American slang. Google the term. You are such an innocent... JohnClarknew (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo. I am an American and am familiar with the term. I'm also familiar with terms like shut the hell up, eat shit, fuck off, and other terms that have essentially the same meaning as "bite me" that many Americans use in their everyday speech. That doesn't mean I would use them in a policy conversation on Wikipedia. Since you seem to think you are speaking to a child allow me to disabuse you of that flawed assumption. I am thirty eight years old, married, own my own business and home. In short, an adult. Like yourself. I would not tell a client to "bite me" at my business as that would be unprofessional. I would tell a drinking buddy to go fuck themselves because that is a personal relationship and standards of decorum are different in a bar or a playground than they are in an adult conversation about policy. That is the distinction I am endeavoring to make clear to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for somewhat defensively revealing to me something about who you are and what you stand for. I want to remind you that foul language does not belong on Wikipedia, unless you are using it in an article by way of encyclopedic meaning. Please refrain from using it with me. The term "bite me" I first saw used by Charlie Sheen on an episode of 2 1/2 Men on CBS Television. I assure you, since you remind me of young Jake, that CBS would be fined hugely by the FCC if the term substituted in for those ugly words you are so readily familiar with. I don't think that civilized people read those words into the expression. To me, they simply mean that if I am to be made to feel guilty by someone who is bothering me, I say "so bite me". Please take more care to avoid typos. And again, please behave when communicating on this site, or I will have to report you, or give you 100 lines. JohnClarknew (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, you're confusing civility and profanity there; a classic mistake. "Bite me" can be just as uncivil as any profanity here on the wiki; it is the intent and direction of the words that matter. There is no need to be sneery or condescending to us; I suspect you consider yourself an "elder and better". I have met many such people. Understand this; just as in the real world, respect is earned by being hard working, polite, efficient and intelligent. The same applies to Wikipedia; the social dynamic is slightly different, but the same basic rules apply :) Typo's, for example, are a common occurrence - picking at people over them is considered rude (in the same way you would not make a remark about someone stumbling over a word). BTW I left you a note on your article talkpage r.e. OTRS, just a heads up in case you missed it --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same 4 or 5 people sticking together, ganging up, patronizing, while retaining their POV? I suggest you examine my website Showbusiness Meets the Law. There you will see that I perform a public service towards people, even you. The site is dedicated to the exposure of corruption, injustice, and hypocrisy wherever it occurs, which is mostly in our system of justice. (My latest entry, a 70 year old lawyer, confined to a solitary cell for 1 1/2 years for challenging a judge. Yes, here in Los Angeles.) And tips for directors and actors gathered over 66 years of a professional life in the theatre business. It costs me, and I don't get compensated, nor do I get or seek advertising. JohnClarknew (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant to Wikipedia's civility policies. I don't think you're going to do well trying to school the community on your greatness while responding to polite corrections with "Bite me!" — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey my friend, you flatter me. If I thought I was as great as you seem to think, would I be wading in the waters with you lot? No way! I'd be sitting in Monte Carlo and enjoying life. I'm intrigued by your signature, though. You've built a "bite" into it. How come? What does it mean? JohnClarknew (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice backhand. As for my signature, it's a simply a play on the phrase "to bite the hand that feeds you." Also, it's the title of a song I enjoy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, this is really the final warning I can be bothered to make. Your persistent cries of Biased editing, POV and discrimination is uncivil, and verging on disruptive. It is not helping us see you are a constructive force on these articles. You're arguing circles on Jimbo's page asking for the "same rights" to edit your page (which of course you have). You're refusing to comprehend the policy we have of not simply accepting your self published opinion without verification or editorial control. You attacked just about everyone offering help and run complaining to Jimbo at any opportunity (still failing to understand there is little he will be able to do). I once again point you at WP:AN/I to complain about editors, WP:BLP/N to raise BLP issues and WP:OTRS to correct factual errors/problems. If you will not use these forums and instead persist with this unclear crusade to achieve... something... (what it might be I am no longer sure) then there is little we can do to help any more. I understand and empathise with your situation - feeling attacked and undermined by Redgrave and then by the press, but WP is not, and never will be, the place to right those wrongs. Fight those battles elsewhere. Our pillars and policies are simple; on WP leave your emotions at the door, work objectively and use reliable sources to verify information. This way we remain free of bias (yes, even your bias) and present as much verifiable information as possible. If that sourced information is wrong, and you can prove it, then do so, in a different forum, using another reliable source - then we have something to work with. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Jimbo's page

You're arguing circles on Jimbo's page asking for the "same rights" to edit your page (which of course you have). Really? That seems to go against what others say. I hope you read my remarks on Jimbo's page. He seems to be the only level-headed contributor on contentious themes. And, of course, he's in constant touch with his vision, because as the founder he is concerned that Wikipedia continues to realize his dream, and continues to be a useful source and free sower of knowledge to the world community. We are "workers". "Do no harm" might be a mantra for you and your co-workers. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday John

I've been watching your travails here. All things pass. I hope you're indulging yourself, and being very kind and gentle with yourself too today. -- Anthony (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anthony. I appreciate the thought. This will pass when the PTB (Powers That Be) make a radical decision, that BLPs will be allowed to participate in additional editing of their named articles under the same rules as everybody else. Meanwhile, it's a danged good sushi bar for me tonight. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't studied your article work, so can't comment on that, but it is my belief that everyone should be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles, so long as they respect the five pillars. 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Happy birthday. Enjoy the sushi! Will Beback talk 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you had a great birthday and havent let the situation on Wikipedia spoil it. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:John8707.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:John8707.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Will Beback talk 23:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jagged Edge (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of lost television broadcasts in the United Kingdom

Hi, I saw you post about having pages for lost shows you may like to know there is a page to list all missing broadcasts of the United Kingdom List of lost television broadcasts in the United Kingdom the list is currently incomplete but hopefully it will grown in future. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Love Letters (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Le Mesurier

You have been asked not to edit war on this article, so please stop. If you do insist on being so egocentric by forcing such trivia into a featured article, do not add it WITHOUT A SOURCE. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And not just any source, please make it reliable. Please leave trivia out. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"links to articles which are themselves "reliable sources" are in fact reliable sources" No, they are not. See WP:COPYWITHIN. If you want to add your ego trip to the article, then PUT IN A SOURCE. Are you even close to understanding this: without a reliable source, IN THAT ARTICLE, then your addition will be removed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are pointlessly edit warring without even trying to address the problem of adding unsourced material. You are now at your limit of WP:3RR and if you revert again you will have breached that blueline limit. I strongly suggest you read WP:3RR to understand the ramifications of what could happen if you revert once more. This will be your own fault, as you have warred without trying to sort out what is being asked: that you ADD A SOURCE to information you are trying to add to an article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Clark as William

Dear John Clark, you have had an allmighty distinguished career.

On the John Le Mesurier page you have insisted on your inclusion as the actor playing William in the radio series 1946.

Yes, that is pushing your presence a little on the JLM page __ and the link in that section, Just William, will take a wiki reader to a section of another page where you are properly and evidently given the credit for your portrayal.

It has been somewhat wince-making following the "wiki-bickering" of your editing attempts and I write to you being a wiki reader, and indeed a past actor, that you should not fush yourself presently as the link on the JLM page finds a proper credit for you in the 1946 series.

There is a problem , it seems, that the section there for the the 1946 programme is not entirely with sourced material and is marked ^{[citation needed]} but it does not concern you as the link to Will Hay confirms your presence before the BBC studio microphone in 1946-47. Regards,--Laurencebeck (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John Clark, I notice you have been blocked for 24 hours.

Do not fush yourself , as I previously hoped to lay my hand on your shoulder as such, and take it easy.

It seems Wikipedia does not wish to totally ban anyone in these circumstanes which is interesting for me to read. regards--Laurencebeck (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, having also observed these recent events, I offer the following suggestion that was per WP:NPOV you refrain from editing articles about yourself. Although it can be tempting to make sure that the article is "Factually accurate". If you look at this page, you wull see that wiki co founder Jimmy Wales himself is not even above this. A usefull suggestion is that you update your website with these things and then perhaps notify the other regular editors of this page. Hope that helps.

-- MisterShiney ✉ 06:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MisterShiney, I believe that matter has already been resolved in my favor. Check the talk page at john Clark (actor).

Meanwhile, in the totally unnecessary ongoing flurry at User talk:SchroCat over my old friend John Le Mesurier's page, I responded to a gentleman posing as Cassianto who sent me a rude message, as follows:-

I am much surprised at you, Cassianto. You claim to be interested in British Music Hall, have edited and contributed to such articles, live in London, and are involved in British law (according to your autobiographical description.) Yet you think that the information I provided for the interest of readers such as you (you ARE a reader too, I assume) is "trivial bollocks". You are not interested that I started my stage and radio career with Will Hay and Stainless Stephen at London's famous old Music Hall the Victoria Palace during the Second World War. And you think that a fellow actor contributor Laurence Beck is a sock puppet and you think I may be one too, and that we "pollute" the article on my old personal friend John Le Mesurier.

Well, here's what I think of you Cassianto, and I say this on behalf of John, were he alive today. I think you are rude, ignorant, foul-mouthed if you join with the aforementioned SchroCat (using "Fecking" as an adjective), write poorly, and bring disgrace upon this fine site, and the British legal profession you claim to be a part of. You, sir, are the one who should be ashamed. Furthermore, I think little of the "reliable sources" provided by the creators of this article. Most of them is a reference to a page number in 2 or 3 obscure books, John's self written which he wrote and it appeared just after he died, is long out of print, and the single new copy offered at Amazon costs $345, and the other a biography written years after his death at $1,000, and therefore subject to opinion and not objective reporting. Nobody is ever going to check, see, or read them. To supply such citations is lazy and furthermore suspicious, because they give only the impression of good references, whereas they are poor references because they are totally obscure. Oh, and learn to respect your betters and seniors, such as me and Laurence. Finally, my fellow members of the Just William Society will indeed run to ground a reference to keep you, SchroCat, Betty the Red Lady with the deleted user page, and a few others of your ilk, happy (I don't think). JohnClarknew (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[I see that SchroCat deleted this entire section about my reaction to his deleting of my link with his NPOV, I would go so far as to say borderline vandalism editing. I am therefore, to keep the record intact, including the last speech he made at me.]

So you're questioning the use of Le Mez's autobiography? Good grief. It's £30 on eBay, although I borrowed mine free from the British Library. You weren't mentioned. The "poor writing" of Cassianto has led to the improvement in a number of articles to bring them up to the level of Featured Articles, so attacking him on such ridiculous ground does little to aid your cause. I suspect that even with a source, others will probably remove the trivia from the article: the addition of such an inconsequential figure adds little to give readers an impression of Le Mez. Finally, I do not think that this discussion merits any more of your toxic comments , which will be ignored in future. SchroCat (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Promise? To be ignored by you would be a huge relief, like going to the bathroom. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you are being very uncivil and quite frankly childish. Sort of behaviour I get from children I teach "He said this, and she said that". Point is, as per the previously cited policy you have no business editing pages relating to yourself because you have a conflict of interest. Just take your comments about a properly sourced book being "Obscure and not reliable" - why is it not reliable? Because you were not mentioned? Do you see where I am going on this? By all means, keep editing articles, Wikipedia needs editors like you. But to keep yourself above reproach, stay away from yourself. But if you insist on continuing to do so, don't be surprised if your edits are scrutinised for reliability and suitable sources. Just trying to help you out. MisterShiney ✉ 11:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly JohnClarknew, your shameless name dropping beggars belief! That's unless of course you expect people to believe it (which I don't). To be honest, I don't really give a toss what you think of me or my writing. I have more FA's to my name than you will ever have. As for my "foul mouth", have you ever stopped to consider that it might be your actions that bring the worst out in people? If you adopted a civil approach to others and respected their work, then others would be more civil towards you. Secondly, I am not willing to discuss my career in-depth with you, or my charitable donations; that is personal information which I am not willing to divulge to a complete stranger like you. However, I will say that I do adore the British music hall scene. I have more memorabilia on the subject than you have had hot dinners in your supposed "82" years of life on this planet. In fact, I have just bought a number of items which belonged to Little Titch, paying over £2,000 for the collection. Like the rest of my exhibits, I plan on loaning them to museums such as the V&A. That is all I have to say, so I shall communicate with you no further. -- Cassianto ^Talk 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at John Le Mesurier. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

This edit war was caused by SchroCat who is NPOV editing on a BLP page. If anyone should be blocked, it is he. I linked to another page to prove definite validity to the link, because there are no inline citation sources possible to support the 76 year old fact and he knows this. He appears to claim ownership of the Mesurier page because it was a featured article recently. This is not in the spirit of fair and unbiased editing on Wikipedia. JohnClarknew (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: Block expired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose unblock

Even his appeal shows signs of further warring should he become unblocked. -- Cassianto ^Talk 08:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not ignore the fact that SchroCat was also blocked, for uncivil behavior. It doesn't show up here. Those would be good grounds to block you too, Cassianto. It's a shame that King of Hearts, I presume an admin, caved in to the pressure of the gang of four, and unblocked him but not me. Will I fight on for a better and more transparent Wikipedia? You bet I will. Get used to it. BTW, sent in your donation for this year yet? Fifty bucks I make available every year. How much do you shell out? JohnClarknew (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't threaten me. If I were an admin, I would have had you blocked permanently. SchroCat and I spent ages getting JLM up to the standard that its at, and rightfully we don't want it all ruined by a drive-by editor who is forcing his trivial POV onto it. Oh, and my philanthropy is none of your business. -- Cassianto ^Talk 08:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Section

G'day, JohnClarknew . . Macbird is redireted to MacBird! but it is Macbird that u have in your bio on your JohnClarknew page . . best__--Laurencebeck (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Laurence, I made that correction. Btw, not to turn this into a social page or we'll get into trouble from some roving band, but were you in a tv movie of Romanoff & Juliet back in the 60s or was that someone else? Just curious. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was me - - with Judith Arthy Juliet. ABC-TV Melbourne. Must be in touch again soon . . you old raver. . heh heh . . ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 07:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well well, she was quite a bird. Tell you what, contact me through my website em which is John@johnclarkprose.com. I love Oz, and want to know more about you. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Nothing wrong with talking about anything and everything on your own talk page to my knowledge it only applies to article talk pages. But be aware everyone can see it. You can use the email user function though. MisterShiney ✉ 11:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kay Hawtrey

A tag has been placed on Kay Hawtrey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

the article is just a summary about a family name and provides only little information about the subject.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. MisterShiney ✉ 12:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mesurier Talk Page

The following has appeared on the article talk page, and in order to preserve this archive of the entire discussion, I reproduce this part here:-

An Edit War is starting

See the talk page of User talk:SchroCat [Message left by JohnClarknew (talk) 18 April 2013]

John, You certainly don't want to be the one to start or continue an edit war. It leads to a block, which you have already experienced. You need to add a source for the information you want to add: it is that simple I am afraid. A good rule of thumb to remember is that if a fact is not notable enough to be found in the sources then it is not notable enough for inclusion in articles. I disagree that there are no sources; you mention the Radio Times for one and back issues of these do exist in the BBC Library and the British Library for a start. As has been noted below, as you are a living individual, sources do need to be added, under the WP:BLP policy, which you have already referred to me. You know that the policy is that sources must be used, so I am unsure as to why you think that you are beyond the consensus of the community and are allowed to ignore it. I will ask you again not to add that information again without a source. Doing so would probably lead to the edit being reverted again by any number of editors, and could lead to a further block to you for edit warring, a situation I am sure you will want to avoid. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SchroCat for your civil advice. What happened to your true persona, where you yelled "Fecking" at me on your user talk page [and were blocked for using bad language]? I see you have deleted much of the discussion there, and I remind you that it is WP policy never to delete on a user talk page, but to archive if you are ashamed of what you put there. As for this article, I do not think it is well sourced. There are far too many references to multiple page numbers in 2 books, both of which are out of print and hugely expensive (quoted at up to $1,000 on Amazon). To say that the books are available at the library may be good for you British contributors, but some of us live elsewhere, like me for instance in Hollywood California. The same holds true of your denial of my contribution in the article where you say I could provide a reference if I visit the BBC archive of back copies of the Radio Times. I repeat my answer to that point as being the same as the prevous point. However, as a peaceful and conscientious member of our WP society, you could and should have done this yourself - problem solved! As for whether the Just William reference is to a trivial event, I can only link here to the distinguished Just William Society who are dedicated to the continuance and celebration of this character which is part of your British heritage. Why don't you join? It's extremely low priced.

Anyone interest in following this storm in a teacup can do so at User talk:JohnClarknew where I have kept this entire contretemps intact, not subject to deletion. I know of people who refrain from consulting Wikipedia on the grounds that it like entering the play Marat Sade, where the inmates have taken over the asylum. While it is true that the founder and senior admins tend to remain low profile in their attempts to retain control, I would not go so far as to say that, and is why I continue to do battle, particularly with those roving bands of British folk who seem to make the most trouble. I continue to believe in the specialness of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia PLUS), and I think we should all try to donate generously to ensure its survival. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so it is the only chance a lot of us insecure misfits and losers get to engage with others. It takes time to learn to work in this very peculiar environment. I remember an earlier contretemps bubbling onto Jimbo's talk page or WP:ANI, and being as impressed then as I am now by your humour, (relative) patience, and rationality.

WP:COI is probably the hottest topic on Wikipedia now, and likely to get hotter as more multinationals and governments wake up to the importance of the top Google hit. WP:BLP is rightly always a hot topic. Combining the two, as you are, is, well, going to elicit what we have here. But you know this.

I just wanted to wish you well. Don't edit-war; don't comment on the intelligence, sanity, character or grasp of the language of individuals on article talk pages and you'll survive. Changing the course of this leviathan takes time. (I have no view on the current content dispute, but think article subjects should be made very welcome on article talk pages, and should be dealt with respectfully and sensitively.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Anthony. It is people like you who ensure my survival! Believe me, I don't go looking for trouble, never have. And I agree that the COI and BLP issues are paramount today. I think that concerns Mr. Wales very much, and I am sure he is working on it as we speak. (This minor molehill issue Talk:John Le Mesurier has brought it to the fore.) You might take a look at his user discussion page. I just contributed to it. User talk:Jimbo Wales. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Hawtrey

Further to your ridiculous edit summary, first off please don't remove maintained tags without a justified reason, which your edit summary was not.

I am sorry...I am harassing you...? Pray tell how? I would also like to point out that if indeed this is the case than either you or your chums go over to the relevant Admin Board and file a report there. Revenge Editing...? Care you explain? Conflict of Interest? I have no relation to the person who this relates biography relates to. I am a drifter. I will read one page, see a link that takes my fancy and go visit. If I see something that needs changing/working on, then I will make the relevant changes and or set things in motions using tags. Your accusations are preposterous and I should urge you to comment on the content and not the editor, as you have just so recently done with your comments of "I have therefore reverted his edit back to where it was when he decided to, er, teach me a lesson?" back on the Kay Hawtrey talk page. It would appear on the surface that you are the one with the WP:CIV issues and not Assuming Good Faith just because I have delivered a couple of helpful pointers that you in your infinite wisdom have taken the wrong way. The world is not against you...I would even be surprised if the world even knows who you are. I should also point out that You are the one in fact with the Conflict of Interest in a number of articles. Your intentions may be good, but your behaviour appears to ignore the fact that you need sources to back up your claims. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because others read this page, notice that I have responded to 3 gentlemen on the subject of my ex-wife Kay Hawtrey, to be found on her talk page, thusly:

I have a life which you 3 may not, and I'm filming up in the mountains for the next few days. Meanwhile, I'm not spending more time on this. Just to let you know that I consider you to be in violation of WP:MEAT and WP:VAN. I have already taken appropriate steps. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those steps being....? I would also point out that saying that someone doesn't have a life, is a border line Personal Attack against another editor. Please explain in what way I am in violation of those said policies...you can't fling accusations around and not provide evidence. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A priori, I am tired of your adumbrated minacious posture, Mister, and that goes for the three (or more) of you. Your clubby pretense in expertise has the appearance of an overwritten palimpsest, causing me to seek relief from an anodyne. Your pixilated yet polemical antics don't match your putative claim to knowledge, it is merely sciolism at its worst. It's time you learned to tergiversate and apostatize. Apotheosis in WP does not exist and your attempts to balkanize efforts with the enforcement procedures of a caudillo is indeed the true threatening behavior. Which of you is the eminence grise in this situation? WP's epistemology clearly escapes you. My education is not fungible with your ignorance. Your attempts at hegemony are laughable and ineluctable. You bear the guilt of scienter. I would rather you macerate your manqué experience, and accept guidance from a solon, a patrician, such as myself, and shed your solipsistic approach. Your behavior is that of a tomnoddy. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are now resorting to personal attacks rather than providing the so called evidence that I am in Violation of WP:MEAT and WP:VAN? Spouting a load of pompously big words around does not make you more knowledgeable or superior than anyone else. Just makes you come across as an supercilious good for nothing bigot*. One would expect that one of such maturity would know when to be the bigger man and walk away rather then get caught up, in the worlds of my generation, Trolling. If your behaviour continues, you may find yourself blocked for a lot longer than 24 hours. *Please note, I am not calling you a good for nothing bigot, I am just saying that is how you come across. -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling you an illiterate blowhard, I am just saying that is how you come across. Please thank your pal SchroCat for teaching me it's OK to delete harassment, spamming, and borderline Vandalism of a personal user talk page. I call it pest con-troll. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Day 3. Still waiting for evidence of breaches of these policies. -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Action

Wikipedia has a policy. WP:NLT and I agree with it completely. However, they do add the following:

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides.

That makes a lot of sense. So, please provide me with some contact so that I can contact you directly in order to iron this out. For me, you can contact me at john@johnclarkprose.com. I'll be glad to hear from you, SchroCat. Also Cassianto, MisterShiney, Dr. Blowfeld, Bencherlite and Delicious carbunkle. The rules sensibly provide for that course, so I know you will be happy to abide by it, and I will be happy to hear from one and all of you. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnClarknew. As it is clear that you are looking to take legal action, I am blocking your account indefinitely. This is a standard measure to ensure that all legal processes happen through the proper legal channels. It is regretable that the dispute has come to this and if you would rather withdraw the threat of legal action and work through Wikipedia's dispute resolution and mediation processes, you will be unblocked. Although I am currently unfamiliar with the full basis of the dispute, I am a member of the wikipedia volunteer response team and should be able to help you with that mediation, should you prefer to go down that standard route. If you would like to take that route, please email info-en-q

wikimedia.org and mark the email for my attention (FAO:Dave Craven). Worm^TT(talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording I have used does not suggest legal action at all, but was an invitation to communicate. The gang must be shitting themselves. But as a volunteer, I would hope you will familiarize yourself with the history of the actions of the above people, and know that I am sorry they do not wish to be contacted. I don't have the time or interest to involve myself with your unblocking procedures. Perhaps you will block them too. Banning would be more appropriate. They are disruptive, and a discredit to this fine site. You will see from their talk pages that they're in daily telephonic communication, acting in unison, and favored apparently. There are rules about that as I have taken pains to point out. I would like to be part of that network, but now I would not. Have a good day. I shall be reporting on my experience at my website, which has a following in the Hollywood Celebrity community. They will be warned. Please give my regards to Mr. Wales. I do admire him, but I think that, as I've said, the inmates have taken over. Kindly see to it that the article concerning my life is protected from vandalism. My ex-wife's was attacked in that manner. JohnClarknew (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were two strong hints at legal action, the section heading and juxtapostion of the quote and request for contact. This is clearly a threat of legal action, and will have a chilling effect on discussion, as I'm sure you are aware. Having said that, I understand how trying the encyclopedia can be, I spend much of my time working with new editors and discussing these sorts of matters, so I am experienced in this area. If you would like to know a little more about me, I do invite you to look at my userpage User:Worm That Turned, where you will find that I'm also part of the Arbitration committee, the final point of dispute resolution on the encyclopedia.

You need not worry about complicated unblocking procedures, if you make a single statement that you "do not intent to take legal action, but instead follow Wikipedia's own dispute resolution procedures", I'd unblock you immediately. I'm also willing to discuss the problems you are having with your article and related articles, either on this page or through our voluteer response page.

I will also ensure that I monitor John Clark (actor) for vandalism in the future, though I'm sure there are many editors who already do so.

One thing I will say is on your comment "the inmates have taken over". I think there is a possibility that no one took the time to explain exactly how Wikipedia works. As you know, Wikipedia is a free to edit encyclopedia, which aims to include the sum of all human knowledge. The important thing to know is that it is also based on a wiki model, a collaborative, fast changing environment with no editorial board. The inmates have indeed taken over, by design - everyone in the community gets an equal say on matters relating to content, rules are designed by the community consensus and that consensus can change.

I hope that helps a bit. You mention that you want to iron this out, I would very much like the same and would be happy to discuss matters further. If you would prefer to email me directly, I also offer the email user function. Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Your legal threat is about as scary as a rice pudding. I am not "shitting myself" as you so eloquently put it, but I am laughing my socks off at what a complete idiot you have made yourself look, that you can be rest assured of. ! -- Cassianto ^Talk 10:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, that was an extraordinarily unhelpful comment and if I see any more incivility or attacks like that, I will not hesitate to block you. For now, keep off this page. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in providing any of my personal details to John Clark (If that is indeed his real name). I showed this legal "threat" to a lawyer friend of mine and he with an honest face asked "Is this a joke?" I have not broken any laws. I have not committed any crime and I most certainly am still waiting for so called evidence that this user has of me breaching policies. If he still insists on pursuing this matter in a legal sense further, then I hope he has a big wallet because I have no doubt that the presiding judge will throw it out and slap a massive wasting the courts time fine on said user. If the user wishes to seek dispute resolution then he can start by apologising for his pompous behaviour and/or withdrawing his accusations or provide evidence to support them rather than throwing around a few letters and hoping people will be scared off. If he feels I have wronged him in any way, he can provide evidence of such and if needed I shall of course provide an apology. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, I haven't really understood the basis of these controversies, but I should tell you that right now the situation isn't looking good for you. You've gotten too many people on your case and a block cycle is begun. The fact that the indef-blocking admin has told you you can get unblocked if you withdraw the threat is a fairly rare out - usually, once an editor gets indef-blocked, any admin asked to help will go over anything you ever did, and even if they know the block was actually wrong, if they can find something they don't like they can always say "you're still blocked for that". I would suggest that as a matter of personal face-saving, the best course for you is to formally withdraw any threat real or perceived, tell the admin you'll try to avoid "WP:Tendentious editing", and once unblocked, delete all the old stuff from your talk page to "put old disputes behind you", and then limit yourself to a handful of really small and uncontroversial changes not in any way about yourself, then quit editing. That way you can end things formally in good standing, without some scarlet letter block notice under your name forever telling the world that you've been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia.

(The other way things go - the way things usually go - is that you try to defend yourself to admins who have no patience to listen to your point of view, they come up with some excuse to block your talk page access, you keep arguing when you're not logged in, they call your IP address a "WP:sock puppet" (regardless of the fact it isn't really), and you end up with this doubly humiliating scarlet letter on your account not merely that you're blocked from the project but that you're a "sockmaster" also, as if you were so desperate you couldn't stop trying to edit Wikipedia even after they banned you.)

Once you disengage from Wikipedia, you may find that you have opportunities to get involved with other projects. I was just talking to Wikinews on an idea in part inspired by your recent troubles [11] and apparently they do do interviews with notable people. That might be a way for you to get your experiences out in a way that is somewhat close to Wikipedia. Another project is Wikimedia Commons which would absolutely love to get any old theatrical photos/documents of any kind you can donate. If you can get some traction on one of those less pugilistic projects, you might eventually have a sort of base of experience to come back at Wikipedia from, if you're not indef-blocked. Wnt (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New book idea

Hey guys, I have a great money making idea. I was just approached by a professional ghost writer here in Hollywood. She has a book gathering dust and not moving at Amazon, and told me she'd make it worth my while if I could dissect her book, and write it up for a feature article! This is very interesting and very tempting. She said that web booksellers kick back to authors out of their promotion budget, but the author has to take the risk and the fall if the scheme fails. Wow! Is it OK if I do this for her? Take her book, and let it be the one reference? Of course, I'd disguise it a bit by coming up with a few other links, maybe reviews in respectable published sources, that should satisfy everybody. It would conform to the strict rules, and nobody would figure it out for a minute. There's no maximum limit as things stand.

Now I'll have to eat dirt and beg to be let back in. I'll have to figure out a way to keep my dignity intact though. Wnt certainly shows me the way. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful per WP:SOAP. There is nothing wrong though in crafting a future featured article though. Not being a vindictive fellow and to show that there is no animosity on my part, I would be happy to offer advice in prose and layout should it be required. -- Cassianto ^Talk 16:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, as much as I would love to assume good faith, my duck is telling me he is continuing to troll. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Well, at least the admins can't accuse me of being uncivil this time. I thought it curious when I saw in the edit screen that he was still blocked. A glitch in the wiki-software, or socking from another computer and cut and pasting a signature? Mmmmmm....-- Cassianto ^Talk 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People can be blocked but still allowed access to their own talk page. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody enlighten me on the rules here? If I, as an editor, find a reference to a reputable published source that says exactly the opposite of what another reputable published source cited and already contained in the article says, does anybody have the right to delete this opposite source, and if so, on what grounds, and if an edit war begins, which one is the third? Please don't now give me a lecture, just give me a plain answer? Be so kind? JohnClarknew (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A justified Question Mr Clark. I believe that the appropriate process is for a discussion to be opened at the relevant talk page where a discussion and consensus can be established on how best to include the "new" information. But it really does depend on the reliability of the source. MisterShiney ✉ 18:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there, see, I disagree. Why the prior discussion? To evaluate which source is "better"? According to whom? A reputable published source is a reputable published source. What you're bringing in is that "opinion" is present. And opinion doesn't belong in WP. Or does it? I thought that WP is an aggregator of collected verifiable published sources, and did not exercise rules suggesting that WP was also a kind of editor. JohnClarknew (talk)

No, to discuss how it can be best integrated into the article. But if it's not reliable, it's not reliable. All sources have varying degree's of reliability. Just because a source is published, doesn't make it reputable. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Mr. Shiney, when I go to the doctor, too often nowadays, he told me that I may have prostate cancer. I sought a second opinion from another doctor, who tested me in a different way. The result I choose to keep private. But similarly in this case, I would very much like to hear from someone with an independent view to answer my question. I am sure you are a very good instructor, as is Mr. SchroCat and Mr. Cassianto. Publicly. No offense intended. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your medical condition has to do with anything, but given that you're blocked, that ain't happening as you can't access other pages. MisterShiney ✉ 08:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so sorry my dear fellow, the medical reference was given as an analogy, to better help you understand why I'd like other input here. I'm so sorry that my meaning was obscure to you. But it's very strange that nobody seems to want to get involved. I must investigate...

Now a light is switching on in my head. I have just discovered the business for profit Wikia, Uncyclopedia, and Geocities with their talk pages and their purposes, and my head is spinning. Advertising. Self-promotion. Vanity. = Money.

Isn't that always where the trouble lies? I realize that WP is but one star in this Milky Way, and to protect its 501(c)3 non-profit status, I imagine there must be a host of lawyers keeping an eye on all of this to prevent a Type Ia supernova explosion with the you know where. Not my lawyers, I hasten to add. But we cannot, must not, become a white dwarf.(Oh, my dear fellow, there I go again. That was a metaphore). So you see, everybody, I've been doing my best to keep any hint of profit out of WP. Forget what I said about my book idea. And I'm sorry I've been blocked. JohnClarknew (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologises. I could have sworn that I replied to this already. Have been a busy few few days what with the Bank Holiday and all. Do you miss those being out in the states? Sorry. Going off topic. What did I say? Probably that your last message comes across as very patronising and condescending. I understand analogies, I for one am not a moron. But I fail to see how a serious medical condition is an appropriate one to use. One a different note, you have still to apologise for your allegations or provide evidence of them. Anyway, I am struggling to see the points you are making? -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's rethink biographies

I am confused by the reasoning as stated above by my friends (that's lawyer speak) and others of the brotherhood as it applies to controversial articles written about the living and the dead. Is the horse (article) pulling the cart (discussion page), or is the cart pushing the horse, which is what they seem to want.
To put it in the simplest of terms, currently, a WP article begins by accepting the invitation to write an article. Fine and dandy. It is done. Thenceforth, others come along to figure out if it is done, in their opinion, in the best possible way. It's examined for its weaknesses, such as lack of inline sources, references and so forth, and the "improvers" move in. Changes are discussed at length, and if there are polite disagreements, polite claims of fraud, and polite disparagements leading to polite edit wars; a polite committee is asked to vote on it, and one side is proclaimed the winner. Meanwhile the writer of the article, treated like a Hollywood screenwriter, will find that his or her masterpiece is changed by others, and can become almost unrecognizable as they polish away, and possibly will go off and shoot himself or herself. My humble friends know this feeling too well.
The obvious solution is to have articles START with Discussion Pages! There the enterprising writer will throw out ideas in the form of a log line, then a short treatment. Ideas will be tossed back and forth, and when there is agreement, the writer can feel free to start, knowing there will be no more disagreement. Thus the cart (the discussion page) will indeed go before the horse (the article). Wouldn't that make more sense and keep my friends satisfied? They can sit in judgment ahead of time, and edit wars would become a thing of the past, and there'd be no more original thinking, or suspicious claims of ownership. Isn't that a brilliant solution? Comments are welcome now, provided they are serious, polite, and thought-out, and not just mindless. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your various characterisation of "roles" within Wikipedia is erroneous. There are no "writers" or "improvers" cadre no invitations to write articles, no polite committees. There are policies and guidelines and, with few exceptions, anyone can contribute to any article about any subject matter at any level of involvement or even competence. No single editor holds sway over any article which they originally authored or have substantially contributed to. Disputes over content, emphasis, sourcing and neutrality are dealt with through open discussion. Please consider reading some of the content policy and guidelines as well as those about consensus. Finally, if I can offer some useful advice, please stop the "us and them" insinuations (exemplified by your lawyers speak). It is unnecessary and will put you at a disadvantage in consensus building if you continue to exhibit an air of superiority both in your subject knowledge and attitude towards others. If you happen to have been genuinely pissed off by someone do what the rest of us do, learn from it and move on. Stop holding grudges. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 08:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you leaky (talk page stalker), I know all of this and have gladly embraced it over the years I have participated in my contributions to make harmless articles. You need to look at biographies, and you will see that there is trouble in that area, and you have my input on how to improve it. In this particular and specific instance, I only ask you and others to read the history of this article devoted to the life of my old friend, the famous John Le Mesurier before commenting. I have become a new person, after I'd been "put through the mill" so to speak. What you say is not helpful, for it doesn't create new ways of thinking (the old ways are unwieldy and lead to trouble) and does not address the behavior of other editors, obviously his fans, three of whom I don't have to mention. And the current "solutions" don't solve the problem in real time. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add here that I have friends, yes celebrity friends, who have had their names used and abused in Wilkipedia. Usually they shrug and walk away swearing to ignore the article on them. They realize they are stuck with it. A famous couple told me that they tried to do something about it, and were instanty reverted on the grounds that they "didn't belong" because of WP:COI and WP:NPOV, and the fact that they were "notables" to whom editing rights are denied on articles about them. I want to change that. I want to see that WP does indeed do what it promises to do. To supply a means to collect and store knowledge instantly available freely to everybody in the world, and that "anybody can edit". Those are its words. No exceptions. That is why I hold Mr. Wales's dream so high. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Mr. Wales thinks or does has little impact on the actual content of the wikipedia today. People like myself, Cass, Schrod etc are the ones that have made wikipedia what it is. It is the vision and approach of people like myself which are helping shape wikipedia as an encyclopedia. When a tremendous amount of work has gone into an article by individuals who obviously care about the subject, then naturally they're going to be wary of somebody who turns up and starts picking holes in the articles and complaining about it. Yes, you could argue WP:OWN and "anyone can edit" should always apply, but wikipedia doesn't function like that over developed articles and I'm sure Mr Wales would be one of the first to admit that it isn't practical to have a completely open "anybody can edit" approach to every article as we'd suffer further vandalism and degradation of articles. The concept is yes, anybody can edit wikipedia, but some are entitled to more than others based on experience and knowledge of articles. We have to maintain a level of quality and maintain articles, if we accepted every edit anybody ever made on wikipedia our quality would be far lower than it is today and you'd see masses more articles which are an embarrassment and more damaging to your fellow actors than at present. The irony in your comments is that it is for the very reason that wikipedia is so open and large that we have a huge amount of poorly written articles with potentially libelous comments because we lack the editors needed to write and research them and ensure that they are accurate and indeed monitor edits made to them in the long term. If we dropped the "anybody can edit" approach, threw out all of the shoddy articles and started pretty much from scratch strictly regulating articles and growth you'd see a dramatic improvement in quality and responsibility for every article on here. I'd go as far to say that the "anybody can edit" approach to encyclopedia building is as much a curse as it is a blessing in that we take the rough with the smooth. The reality is that the masses do not produce quality content or add sourced material to wikipedia, but the bulk of the quality content on wikipedia is researched and written by a small-knit community.

Clint Eastwood and Clive Mantle I've mostly written and if anybody comes along and starts tampering with it I'm on red alert. Something similar to the Mesurier case happened with the Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary article and the Legends of Alcatraz which I've authored by people claiming "fringe theories" and trying to delete it. Why should I accept edits to articles which degrade the content? I'm sure they felt their edits trying to delete it were justifiable, dispute is a big part of wikipedia I'm afraid, and its rarely resolved by insulting each other and threatening to sue people. As one of wikipedia's most experienced editors, nothing is more irritating to me than a know-it-all turning up out of the blue and making major changes to articles and issuing threats and trying to delist it from being a good or featured articles and degrading the work that has been done. The Mesurier article is a decent article on him, not as good as Peter Sellers which we also collaborated on, but given the sources is a very good article. What exactly is causing you to react like this? The article isn't full of lies and attacks on JLM is it? You've made some interesting and thoughtful comments on this page, its a pity you don't show a little more respect to editors here, you might get somewhere if you did and speaking for myself I tend to mirror how I'm treated. I'd warmly welcome you to write for us and develop articles on some of the shoddy actor articles into something credible so long as it is neutral and well sourced and I'd be happy to work with you on such articles you'd like to develop providing that you are constructive and your attitude is amicable. Brian Blessed is one I'd like to get up to GA some time, Sean Connery too♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have spoken, and show that you align yourself with "Cass", "Schrod", etc. including "MisterShiney". You may wish you hadn't been this revealing.

I have spoken too, in the only way I can, blocked as I am. With proof that you people are not above lying. Personal attack? You decide. I only know this. I will post an update when things are put right, and Wikipedia can set its course on a straight and level field, with open and free editing for ALL. And I hope that Mr. Wales WILL get involved. I don't like to see his concept trashed. [12] JohnClarknew (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing this research in the best spirit of WP, as I say here [13] JohnClarknew (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have said absolutely nothing of the sort. I've barely been involved with you argument, neither do I know exactly what you are complaining about or what is obstructing you from achieving what you want. Looking at your blog it seems to be about Just William. All I know is that a] I believe Schrod and Cassianto are honest, hard-working editors on wikipedia who have written many fine articles and have a desire to produce quality accurate articles and have been thoroughly decent individuals in conservation. b] I don't tolerate nasty, unpleasant people who threaten, bully, troll, and are incapable of a fair, human conversation. You've come across to me as a troll who will go to extraordinary lengths to provide his argument on something. Looking at your article, if you are disputing that John Le Mesurier was really in Just William and that Schrod is misrepresenting the source and the Radio Times source does not actually prove he was in it then I'd say you are right to dispute the accuracy of that fact that he was in it and that we must seek as source which specifically states he was in it just for full verification. But the way you've blown this into something really rather ghastly has been rather over the top don't you think?

If you broadened your horizons away from one fact in one article you'd find that you can actually edit the majority of articles with ease if you adhere to our guidelines and source your work. But featured articles are different in that they've been heavily researched with a lot of effort put into them and if you turn up and start making large scale edits its almost inevitable that conflicts will occur. You don't seem to understand the process which has gone into producing them and how guarded writers of featured articles usually are over the content. They represent a tiny proportion of our articles, so calling wikipedia a "lying encyclopedia" is a gross misrepresentation of fact, and is most certainly not a fair perspective as you clearly have very little experience of the website and articles. Scientific studies have even shown that we are typically more accurate and more neutral than most sources. Many articles which I've written if there is something even slightly problematic with an image or content it is almost always picked up on by somebody at some point. I welcome you to edit here and improve articles on actors. I started WP:Actors because I'm interested in improving the quality of articles, you're welcome to join and contribute to wikipedia if you maintain a fair-minded approach to other editors and edit neutrally within the guidelines. If you're not a troll and have honourable intentions here, I'd request for you to be unblocked and to work on something different while this issue is going on in the background. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've just come across a user, actually an admin, these guys should look at and learn from. He uses his own name which is Samuel Wantman User:Sam, is not a notable, speaks clear English, sounds civilized, and is an EVENTUALIST. I hope he's still active. I'd like to hear his view on whether WP should allow everybody to edit with no exceptions, and to be generous about original content used judiciously, on the grounds that a good article will eventually "get there" as he puts it, because the concept is self-correcting. There is an immediate need. I have a feeling that Mr. Wales doesn't want to get involved. JohnClarknew (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still active (barely). WP does allow everybody to edit, but only with the tacit understanding that you'll learn to understand and live with the odd version of consensus that WP uses. In the decade or so that I've been here, I'd say we've gone from a community that valued respectful dialogue leading to consensus as being more important than rules, to one that rigidly polices and guidelines like they are law. I've had relative newbies revert things I've edited and give as a reason a guideline that I had worked on writing -- applying the rule while misunderstanding the reason behind the rule. At this point, it seems like WP is what it is, and is not going to change. There are too many people who think they understand the guidelines, and too few that know how to ignore all rules while create something better. Those that DO want to create something better will be reverted by the petty bureaucratic editors that patrol the articles, waiting to pounce. Maybe that is an inevitable development, as it takes so much time to have yet another discussion with another well-meaning newbie who just doesn't understand. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I hear despair in your voice, Sam? WP does NOT allow everyone to edit, consensus notwithstanding. If only the above (oldies, newbies - I have no way of knowing) - abided by the rules - and stopped claiming ownership rights on the articles they created just because they got to be featured, and used a little civility in their dealings, WP would keep a good reputation. Not too much to ask. When they reverted my innocent enough addition to an article on a dead celebrity, and I knew him well, they administered me with a, well, gloved slap in the face. I'm not too good with the pistols any more, but I wasn't going to let that pass unchallenged. I'm running this to ground. Either they are right, or I am right. There's a principle involved. And I insist that The Just William Society is an important source and authority, and should not be insulted. And I am not an insignificant little schmuck who should stay away from editing because I'm famous (it's said). Stay active, Sam. Your input is still needed. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, MisterShiney and Dr. Blofeld, who have discovered a hidden ability to be civil, and now wish to display it. I have banished you from my talk page, just as you banished me from participation in your hotly defended article on JLM. Poof! There you go. And don't come back. I am crippled by not being able to participate any longer, therefore you are spamming and in fact vandalizing my talk page, where I am still allowed to express myself. This is not a discussion page any longer. JohnClarknew (talk)

To go back to this subject, I just discovered a fellow (80 year old) participant by the name of novelist Philip Roth, another "notable", who I don't know and never met, or read about before. He makes my exact same argument, but is now getting coverage in the May edition of Readers Digest, as well as the NY Times, and the Guardian newspaper, with huge worldwide circulations. I'm quite sure that Wikipedia management knows about this already and is doing something about it.

But for my readers, I urge you to google "PHILIP ROTH" together with "WIKIPEDIA". Makes us all look a bit silly, don't you think? Worse, don't think that IMDb and Amazon and FB (and others) won't think of ways to steal and monetize the genius of advertisement free WP? We will lose popularity, and readers will go elsewhere for their knowledge. JohnClarknew (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I just read Mr. Roth's open letter to Wikipedia published in the New Yorker. I'm sorry, but he just doesn't understand. There's no way he should be able to edit, because he won't learn the syntax or the architecture or the paradigms, and will probably allow others to do it for him. My record shows that I have learned these things, and all I now want is to be treated with respect, not be marked with the cross of notability, and have full freedom to edit. The article on me pretty well says it the way it should be said, good and bad refs. and should not be vulnerable to attack.

Here's a solution which I put up for discussion. That living Notables could, if they wished, have a space available to them to correct something, or to make an opinion-based comment. Above all, it MUST have the subjective "I" or "me" or "my" in it, as though followed by a signature. Could be a template allowing for a limited number of words, WITH A POV, AND ORIGINAL CONTENT, AND AN OPINION! It could say "See my website at..." Or "See my Facebook Page (linked here) where I can say what I want" or "See my latest movie at..." Or "I've just changed agents to..." or "Don't believe that article in the Mail dated..." or "I am a member of the Republican party..." or "I'm very proud of my new novel..." or "You can contact me at..." or "I just did a good interview which can be found at ..." or "I was born/married on this exact date", or "My favorite music is..." etc. etc. You get the idea. Of course, they will be monitored for libel, but will be able to have a POV. There and only there. They also will not be allowed to insult WP, or any volunteers, or any users, or pitch products. Furthermore, the section should not be editable by others, and should be watched by admins. The section could be labeled "POV statement by subject of this Article", or words to that effect. I'd like to see more notables get on-board in a good way. And for their representatives and fans to get off-board. Finally, lawyers will see that a loophole is provided for notables to correct the record on the article itself, rather than badmouth WP in the media, as I have been forced to do. Remember, notables have a fanbase and a hatebase, and an off-site audience. JohnClarknew (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are other websites doing that make WP more vulnerable to extinction? To make it go the way of the Dinosaur? Here's what the (Valley) Daily News says about the rules if you want to comment, and face it, WP workers (makes us sound like ants, doesn't it) love to comment. How'd you feel about a New Rule. That all users are recommended (not forced) to have a Face Book account, to be revealed on their user talk page? If that happened, you would notice that the FBers would get higher marks for personal integrity. Here are the answers they give to Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: Do I need to have a Facebook account to comment on articles? A: No. Even though the commenting system is provided by Facebook, it accepts logins from Facebook, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft/Hotmail.

Q: Will my friends on Facebook see my article comments? A: Yes, but only if you a) log in with your Facebook account and b) leave the box check-marked "Post my comment to my Facebook profile" next to the "Post" button. Uncheck that box and your comment won't appear in your Facebook feed.

Q: Will people be able to click on my Facebook profile from my article comment? A: Yes, but what they see is determined by your Facebook privacy settings. Those settings allow you to decide how much information you want to share with your friends or others.

Q: Do you only want positive comments? A: No, we want to encourage discussion about topics in stories. But please be civil. Comments that use foul, derogatory, racist or violent language will be removed.

Q: Why did you make the switch to Facebook commenting? A: We've found that article commenting became more civil when a person is easily identifiable with their name and face attached to a comment.

There, they require identity to be revealed, preferably, because then Users will be more civil. And THAT makes sense. And may mean that SockPuppetry will be a thing of the past.

I have noticed the difference between the Los Angeles Times commenting system and the NY Times. The former is totally accessible by anyone, and frequently becomes unreadable with ugly babble. The latter is quite haughty. They like you, you're in, they don't like you, you will be censored out. I don't like either one, but the Daily News's system is self-correcting, and self-administered, like WP in a way. Personally, I think that nobody should hide in this world. Why not be open and free? Only then are we equal. Those who hide have reasons to hide. I for one would like to see WP deny editing privileges on BLP pages (only) to those who hide behind pseudonyms. I'm sure that most of the problems would disappear like magic. Has nobody thought of this?

Another thing. Lines have been drawn between Notables and Not-notables. (I kind of straddle them.). I know this. If I am to be "judged" for compliance to "the rules", then I want to be judged by a panel of my peers. That means if I am a Notable, then I want that panel to have a mix. It's called "democracy in action." Otherwise, well, look what happened for the Juice. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, MisterShiney. Users can look at the history here, and see that you have tried to swamp me ever since I was blocked. Before that, you notice I have let your comments stay, and they seem to say everything you want to say, and nothing you say now is different. I'll let you say something on this page (as the self-nominated spokesperson for everyone else) on one condition. That, like the two admins I've welcomed because I respect them for the fact that they use their real names, YOU use your real name. Otherwise, you are anonymously bothersome, and you can go back to your user page, say whatever you like about me, and leave me alone. I am blocked, so I work under a handicap, but on the other hand I still have a voice, and you can turn away. Ignore me. I want no pseudonyms here. I have deleted your last remark.
Any brave stand-up-and-be-counted-as-real-people out there? Welcome aboard. Join the discussion. Join the Notables, ALL of whom have real monikers, in case you hadn't noticed. Don't be afraid, we don't bite. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, I will remove anonymous "talk page stalkers" from this, my user page. If they wish to repeat endlessly the WP mantra, and insert here simply because it shows up in the history of this page, well, that is clever back-door sneakage. People may look at what they have to say, because the software allows them to do it. I believe that WP needs to grow and develop before it is lost to a commercial enterprise, who will do what WP is not doing. I still have my entire set of original copies of the esteemed Encyclopædia Britannica, which got into financial difficulties and was bought up. Meanwhile, to return to this reality, I see signs of a Clockwork Orange developing into a Utopian society led by Ralph, of the Lord of the Flies. And who will play Ralph?
Perhaps, before continuing this discussion (which I welcome) from real people with real names, they will take a brief look at what started this, my insertion of an interesting footnote to a featured article, under well established rules, on April 12th. Here it is, to save time:

1946–59

On his return to Britain, Le Mesurier returned to acting, although he initially struggled to find work.[38] In addition to a few small roles with Croydon repertory, he made his radio debut on the BBC Light Programme in a November 1946 adaptation of Just William, starring John Clark in the title role, in which he played the part of Uncle Noel.[38] In February 1948 he made his film debut in the second feature comedy short Death in the Hand,[39] which starred Esme Percy and Ernest Jay.[40] He followed this with equally small roles in the 1949 film Mother Riley's New Venture—although his name was misspelt on the credits as "Le Meseurier"[41][42]—and the 1950 film Dark Interval, a crime film also featuring Zena Marshall, Andrew Osborn and John Barry.[43] During the same period he also frequently appeared on stage in Birmingham.[32]

Judge for yourselves. My website goes to considerable trouble to establish that in fact I was a busy kid star back in 1946, by printing the Radio Times cast list. Not out of vanity, but out of fact and source. I will not be manhandled by the creators of this article on JLM. Now look how the article has been cleverly changed to the harmless "according to..." (denied to me) and hides how it got there. John Le Mesurier The perpetrators would lose big under cross examination in a courtroom, but of course, there is no basis for a trial to take place in a public courtroom under the common justice system. Perhaps MisterShiney hides because he is a lawyer. Certainly the edits were very cleverly crafted, with the manipulative skill of a lawyer. Are you, MisterShiney, a lawyer? Answer here with a one word simple yes or no. I will leave it on. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me John: I am lazy and somewhat overwhelmed by the ubiquity of imperfection on this site. I can't remember why, but your talk page is on my watchlist, so I have glanced from time to time at the eruptions here, but don't really know what's going on. I went to your website and it seems from that that an editor told you he'd sighted a primary source and lied as to what that source said. Have I got that right?

If so can you please very concisely - bullet points would be good - give me a summary of what has happened here, and how you ended up blocked? Again, comprehensive but concise (the essence of good prose) is what's needed here, not only for my pathetic sake, but so that as many other experienced editors can efficiently see what the story is. Do you know what a WP:diff is? If so, judicious use of those in a list of events is often appreciated by editors reviewing situations like this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anthony, nice to meet you. You are lazy and I am exhausted. I am eighty, and preparing, health allowing, to close down! I cannot go over bullet-pointing what has already been gone into. Please give it a quick read as you would in your medical research; you will get the idea of why what should have remained in place as a simple edit, was reduced to an event in which I was insulted and demeaned because of a system which currently does not allow, because of assumed vanity, persons deemed to be living notables to defend themselves. I feel I was pilloried. What ensued was a succession of arguments rendered in the style of comments found in Mail On Sunday articles. You will quickly see the tone. I used humor (humour) to no effect. It doesn't always work. Anyway, this has become a battleground. I am now one of the great unwashed (disfellowshipped) but at least I can be heard. 1st Amendment is still respected around WP for the most part. Because of my website, which you will have noticed specializes in legal and consumer matters in the showbiz arena, this subject is getting attention from living notables. I can think of no others who do this. You may not wish to enter the fray, you must be a busy man. And of course I don't look to you to do other than take a totally NPOV when reading it and commenting. If you cannot take the time, respectfully, better you don't offer an opinion. But take special notice that the perpetrators, cowards that they are, have morphed their initial position into a safe one, denied to me, of "... according to the author (of the source book)" thinking that will cause me to back off. But the damage was done, and I intend to take it to a conclusion here and on my webpage and probably as a comment on Amazon. The authority I cited (the Just William Society) also has to show it has integrity. I will soon know whether the biographer inspected the BBC records as he claims, or didn't. I am not afraid to report that he did, and my memory is faulty. And please notice that I am a huge supporter of Mr. Wales's dream and (co)-creation, and want only to see it become more transparent and perhaps simplified, like the IRS tax code needs to be. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful page. English Wikipedia. One fact is missing. Living Notables are all identified by name, 100% of them. WP Users? We'd like to know what percentage of account holders operate under their own name, and what percentage use a pseudonym. I would bet that the percentage of users contributing under their own name is very small. WP must know, and it should be revealed here. I cannot make that edit, nor do I know the answer.

I was glad to read of the existence of the arbitration committee, the successor to Mr. Wales's ownership claim to decision making back when he first started WP.

Also, Anthony, you need look no further than John Le Mesuriier's talk page. Talk:John Le Mesurier. A 20 minute read should tell you all you need to know for a thorough understanding of the situation. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to that talk page myself, not having looked for a few days. I was surprised to find that a civil discussion is taking place now, with some real-name users getting involved! I thought they were going to do that on this page, but I now see they don't want to do that.

I am pleased to be able to say that transparency is being attempted, and real names do not need to be scary. Robert Kirkpatrick, the volunteer historian of the Just William Society, has received an email from (the BBC archives [personal information removed by SchroCat]) to say "Thank you for your enquiry. I will check the cast list and get back to you next week." I also see that WP users have also contacted the BBC archives for that information, so it is safe to say we are reaching a conclusion. The BBC archives is happy to make their contact page publicly available, and if an individual or organization qualifies, they may use their facility for research purposes.

If it turns out I am wrong, then this octogenarian will be happy to say so, and announce it on my website. If I am right, I believe that the said users will do the same on the JLM talk page. Whether I am trivial, and not worth mentioning, I will not involve myself with. I don't need to be evaluated by WP biased opinion in that way, and the fresh air and sunlight that has entered has provided the answer for me and my readers. I find it interesting that my original contributed source, the magazine, has not once been mentioned, on the grounds that it is vanity advertising. It amuses me to wonder whether anyone bothered to fork out the pittance to check it. If anyone has, please let me know at my email address which is john@johnclarkprose.com.
Next week, we should know the answer. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clark, I have removed the information, which had previously been requested you remove. Please do not re-add this: the party concerned has not given permission for her personal details to be broadcast worldwide on the internet. - SchroCat (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just spent an hour at the JLM talk page. I didn't read it all, but followed a number of diffs and looked at the edit war in the article's history. I spent some time looking for the WP:ANI discussion mentioned, but couldn't find it. As I say, I'm out of energy at the moment, and have a massive to-do list, so can't contribute much here.

Edit warring is almost always at least a tactical error. My impression, for what it's worth, is that from quite early on you have been treated with appalling disrespect and incivility. You can be quite harsh yourself at times, but nothing I've seen you say in this case or earlier has quite reached the depths of puerility, insult and petty bullying achieved by many of your interlocutors.

Worm is giving you good advice below. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few ground rules

I admit I haven't been as active on this as I should have been, I've been distracted with other things. We've discussed matters to the point that you felt you were in the same position as you were before discussing things with me - in other words, I'm up to speed and nothing's changed. I'm going to make a few points here.

You are currently blocked. I've told you a number of times that you can be unblocked if you make a public statement that you "do not intend to take legal action, but instead follow Wikipedia's own dispute resolution procedures", I will unblock you. I note that you have stated this by email, but not on site.
The primary use of user talk pages while blocked is to work towards an unblock. You should not be used as a "soap box", not a place where you can put the world to rights. I'm happy to let you have a little bit of leeway and I believe discussion is the best thing to do, but at some point you are liable to lose your talk page access.
I note that you have requested MisterShiney removes himself from this page. I've followed that up with a stern note on his talk page. In return, I request that you do not give him any reason to come here - no more questions for him, no accusations about him, just forget he exists.

Hopefully we'll be able to move on from here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, please don't add email address (besides your own) to pages on Wikipedia. They are liable to being scraped for spam and can lead to large numbers of unwanted email. For that reason, I would recommend not including your email either, but of course that is your choice. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Worm That Turned. Your overview was missed. Yes, we all have other things that keep us busy. I'd appreciate it if you would block SchroCat, as you warned him you would do if he did not leave this page of mine, and here he is back again, disrespectful as usual by calling me "Clark" instead of the normal JohnClarknew. About revealing a "personal email address", you should know that the BBC is a quasi governmental organization, and runs a public website where the public can ask questions about the BBC's honorable history, and I simply gave the email contact. It is not a link to a private or personal email. Please don't dumb me down.

At the moment I see you as directing the policies of WP towards me, and not towards the group you and I can identify by now. You will notice that at the bottom of the Talk:John Le Mesurier page, they are now using my same arguments to their own advantage, whilst not applying them to me at the start of this nonsense. Which goes to the heart of what this is all about, the denial of access to notables who use their own names, while others especially those using pseudonyms are given unrestricted access to hobble and sometimes to denigrate notables.

You say I am using this page as a "soapbox"? Well, the Bible is a soapbox, so is the U.S. Constitution. So is the office of the Presidency, so is Congress, so is the Supreme Court. So I don't think your remark is meaningful, it's possibly weaselly but it does suggest power, power to shut me up, and of course you may exercise it is you feel I am saying anything unreasonable, or even if you just wish it for no reason because you're having a bad day. I would hope that if you do, you will also shut up SchroCat and MisterShiney. If you don't, then you are not exercising a WP:NPOV position.

But if you shut me down and I find that the BBC backs up the biographer's claim to have NOT made a mistake, and I owe an apology to the authors of JLM's article, then I will have nowhere to apologize, will I? Think about that.

This storm that began in a teacup needs to be examined carefully, not glossed over with quick bullet points. I am a kind of unofficial ombudsman for us Notables on Wikipedia. I would like to see its policies change towards us in some way, especially in terms of living up to the claims of egalitarianism by WP. When I see some movement, I will happily take your suggested steps rejoin the ranks, if you'll put up with me, and I'm still around. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to help resurrect this situation and I requested those respected editors like Charles Matthews and Brian Boulton for input. Charles Matthews is the coauthor of one of the books on wikipedia and has as good a perspective as you're going to get. He concurs that there is a chance you are right, and suggested the rewording of the claim. That's the best we can do now until it is verified by the BBC, because however wrong it seems, our verification policies dictate that we place more reliability on a published source like a biography in which the authors claim to have personal access to Mesurier's files than the word of mouth of somebody who was in a play 67 years ago. But your blind reverting of my good faith messages here made me turn on you go again John and question that you are trustworthy because I put in considerable effort to try to give you a fair hearing and judgement. Your comments here since you've read what I've done on the talk page and article I must say are rather more becoming and what I'd have expected originally here when I contacted you and made the initial posts. I think this was blown into something much larger than it needed to be. But if a fact is seriously disputed I take it very seriously. Perhaps I also owe you an apology for some of the things I've said in frustration at the way you blew me away, but some of the things you've said about us being liars and seeming to make legal threats you must see how you came across. If you treat me, even if not Schrodringer or Cassianto, with a little respect, I'll return it, honestly. As I said, I don't want to let one minor issue spoil wikipedia for you. You seem to like the encyclopedia despite its shortcomings and I encourage you to edit here and help improve actor articles, I mean that. I'd request for you to be unblocked as soon as possible if you can draw a line under the JLM ordeal and move on constructively and make it perfectly clear you have no intention to cause trouble.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...than the word of mouth of somebody who was in a play 67 years ago. Why do you mischaracterize what happened? I did not do that. What I did was to cite a reliable source, the magazine put out by the Just William Society, where it showed that JLM was in the stage play and in a TV presentation only, and they found no record that he was in the radio series at all, and I backed that up by saying I did not remember him in the radio studio. Then you people discredited the JWS organization by saying they were insignificant as a source, which upset a lot of people, as you might understand. Then I helped to calm things down by suggesting - well, I see you've backtracked. If you look, you'll see that I suggested the same re-wording in the first place ("according to..."), and I believe it should be applied equally to me, as well as to the author of the book!

Did I use legal threats and call you liars? I think you'll find I did not. I use humor as a weapon, more effective usually. I have done standup in my time. Maybe I'm losing my touch.

My primary issues stand, as I expressed them, pertaining to notables' equal access. They are fed up with the condescending attitude of non-notables towards them. Yes, I make trouble and blow whistles, because sometimes nobody else does. Politically Incorrect, like a rather well-known TV personality I happen to know. This same issue came up a couple of years ago you'll notice, then things quieted down, and up it came again! Look at the talk page.

The only contribution I might make to actor articles would be considered original content - not allowed. I am a teacher, director, acting coach, actor, and script doctor foremost, not a purveyor of other people's opinions found in books and magazine articles. And I was anyway long ago warned not to do actor articles, because I could not maintain a NPOV if I did!

I await the outcome, and I'll leave your comment on. JohnClarknew (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that you added the magazine, the discussion was so convoluted it was difficult to see what was going on! Did you appear in the stage production as well as the radio? Seems unusual to go from the radio to theatre, I'd have expected it to have been the other way around. Either way it must have been exciting as a young lad of 14 or so to be Just William. I was a big fan of the books as a kid and had all 26 books. Violet Elizabeth "I'll squeam and squeam until I'm llick". I always wanted to visit one of the sweet shops in the books, Richmal Crompton had a knack for describing sweets, probably genuinely loved them her description of them was so vivid! Well, one of my major interests is film and actors, but I don't get as much time to edit them as I'd like, User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK the main reason!! I'm all over the shop here so to speak. But it would be great if you were interested in improving articles on actors you may have known and I'd be happy to help as it would give me some purpose. On the contrary, if you write in a neutral fashion formatting sources according to guidelines I'd say you'd have the potential to produce some real good articles on some British actors which mostly badly need expansion and proper research. On such a negative website as wikipedia it's difficult to feel motivated at times to produce real quality work and I have my DYK co contributors to mostly thank for it. Brian Blessed is one I'd really like to significantly improve but there are dozens of actors and films really badly needing improvement. Mike Pratt is another one, Randall and Hopkirk is my favourite TV series! Did you ever meet Sir Lawrence? I found an article yesterday on the production for The Prince and the Showgirl and seems not many of them liked Marilyn Monroe!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can promise to stay away from the Mesurier article and that dispute at least until the BBC responds and never imply taking legal action over anything again I'll request for you to be unblocked here as clearly you regularly log into wikipedia and you should be free to make edits to general articles in browsing if they are needed. As I say I'd love to see you constructively improving articles on actors you might have known if you avoid POV and source them but I understand if you don't have the energy to write much. Two of my regular collaborators though are in their early 70s and full of beans!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, I'm happy for John Clark to be unblocked, the moment he publicly rescinds him implied legal threat. He's aware of that and has neglected to make that statement implying one of two things. He actually intends to make good on the legal threat or he prefers to remain blocked for the time being. I expect it is the latter.
John, I will not be blocking anyone if I can help it, I'm not a trigger happy admin. I've not told SchroCat to stay away, I've advised it, and he has not edited this page since. I've also spoken to MisterShiney, who also has not edited here since. You are lucky that you've piqued Dr. Blofeld's interest, he's a long term editor that understands the procedures here very well and I would trust to treat your case in a fair and impartial manner - I will leave the actual article work in his very capable hands. I am well aware of the BBC and how it works, however you gave an email address of a specific employee, rather than a generic one. I would recommend not placing any email addresses on Wikipedia, primarily for spam prevention purposes.
I said before that I was happy to debate the philosophy of Wikipedia. So, now I come to the concept of who gets to edit articles. Wikipedia is based on the crowd source model, for better or for worse, experts on a topic are not given any additional weight to their opinions. The theory is that an expert's opinion should be given more weight due to their depth of knowledge and the quality of the argument. The same goes for "notables", of course you are an expert on yourself, but that doesn't afford you any additional voice on the encyclopedia in and of itself. There are some who'd argue that you actually should have less of a voice because there is such a difficulty in remaining objected. For this reason, we offer other ways to correct errors, such as our contact us system.
I'd be happy to chat about possible improvements to the system, but at the same time, I would not agree with changing the system fundamentally in a way that would open the door to puff pieces or other POV editing. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, intelligent comments Worm. John, I've expanded John Clark (actor) out of sheer curiosity, please point out any errors, I distinguished eventually that you were not the John Clark of western films, I was going to ask you what Lee Van Cleef was like! But I'm sure I'll have got something wrong. It would be good if you could upload some photographs you own of your acting career, you as Just William and your stage productions, naturally you'd have to own the copyright for the photos shown though. It would probably best if you wrote a full biography on your website which could be used as a source..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, thank you for taking your kind interest in my history. If you'd like to know more, here's the simplest way to do it. Get in touch with these folks, and I'm sure they'd be happy to mail you a magazine which you'll find interesting to read, and it's not about me, it's about that scrappy little schoolboy Just William, the posterboy for what it means to be British. He's quite a character, and I think I absorbed some of it. He's in my DNA. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Just William is a shockingly inadequate article given his iconic status representing what it means to be a British schoolboy. If you get yourself unblocked I would love to see you extensively expand and source it to a decent level, you could ask the society to help write it. I'd put it on my watchlist and monitor the progress and help with sourcing and formattingcopyediting. Your call..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo!

As far as I am concerned, the ground rules consisted of my promising to apologize if I was shown to be wrong, and for the authors of the JLM article to apologize to me if THEY were proved wrong. Agreed?
The BBC has responded, in glorious full. Thanks to their researcher, Monica Thapar, here it is, a complete cast list and content of the broadcast in question. Since I can't upload it here, I have no choice but to direct WP editors to this latest page on my website. If I get an apology, I shall edit my headline where I state that Wikipedia lies. I'd prefer to sing its praises, believe me, not knock it.
FULL CAST LIST
JohnClarknew (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad it has been cleared up, Schrod instantly removed it, if he was really awkward and intentionally trying to misrepresent the truth he wouldn't have done that. Everybody is human (well most of us hehe) and capable of making mistakes. I'd imagine that most biographies contain a few errors as do most book encyclopedias. I didn't say you were lying about what you said, I just have a lot of articles on my watchlist and JLM is one of them and my watchlist was lighting up with aggressive comments and I simply showed a strong distaste to the way you were coming across which seemed threatening and rather unpleasant. I was particularly annoyed personally by the way you treated me even after I'd approached you in a civil manner than anything that was said on the talk page of the article and reverting me claiming vandalism. That was pretty ugly I thought, but so was the overall ordeal in which all were involved in. I didn't have a clue what the conflict was about until I saw your blog article on the Radio Times source and saw a glimmer of light in what was wrong. Your discussion got so convoluted and unnecessarily heated I found it virtually unreadable. Common sense in my opinion would make you more inclined to believe somebody who experienced something first hand than somebody who writes about an event when they were not present, but our verification guidelines consider it original research. Worm explains it above why this is and how many problems it might create if we started generating content based on word of mouth. The anybody can edit approach is constantly at odds with our guidelines to the point it would never be fully open. I think something should be written into the guidelines which if a source is disputed by somebody claiming first hand experience and something to be an error that it is placed in front of a council or something who chase things up like with this and the claims are reworded until proven, but I'd imagine some facts particularly of past centuries would remain disputed forever. As you say in your blog, moving on...

Worm said he'd unblock you if you promise not to imply taking legal action again on here. If he does unblock you I hope you'll remember that FAs are often war zones and you'll want to start writing for us, and in reality the majority of wikipedia is open to editing so long as your source the material. If you began expanding Just William, clearly the article has not been given any TLC and it is highly doubtful anybody would obstruct your edits, FAs are kinda like minefields in no mans land when it comes to editing in general, even editors like Malleus who've authored lots of them are often reverted. Try not to take it as a personal attack on your integrity.... If you want help expanding an actor/play or film article let me know. But if you have no intention to edit constructively for wikipedia being unblocked won't mean much in practice but its your call, I think you need to explicitly state something to Worm. I wish you the best... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am glad that has been cleared up for the better. As has previously been said, FA articles are fiercely protected by other editors because just as an article can promoted to a GA/FA status, it can also be demoted. I apologise for any potentially antagonising comments from my end and take my full share of the blame of the situation. Please be assured that I was only following the Policies and Guidelines as best I know how and I think if I have learnt one thing is that we can type anything we like with the best intentions, but in the heat of things it can totally be taken the wrong way - especially when we cannot see the person we are talking to. I agree with Misters Blofeld and Worm that you will make a valued contribution to the site. As I am sure Mr Schro does too as it would seem that your interests lie in the same area. In future I would urge that if your sources come into dispute again, as in this case, that you head straight on over to The Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is the same as an Admin Noticeboard (to my knowledge) where more knowledgeable minds will be suitably discuss the source. If you do stay on and work on the Just William article, I strongly urge you to get the JustWilliam Society checked out by the RSN. Just to cover it from future questions. I look forward to working with you in the future, if you decide to stick around, you have some interesting ideas and who knows...I may even tell you my real name one day. But as I have said previously, I do need to be careful and I hope you understand. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things. First, the kind of articles I like to get involved with are not about me, or about Just William, but about real characters long gone; ships and the sea; and airplanes and airports. They are what turn me on, and as you can imagine are not likely to lead to contretemps. I don't fool with fellow "Notables" (notice the quotes) because many are friends of mine, and I know secrets, and I don't tell secrets. In fact, I have a contempt for the publications that try to find out what their secrets are and even pay for them, and then make life miserable for their victims. It's no wonder some turn to drugs.

The other thing, before I release myself from this blocking factor, is that I would like to put back what I originally tried to put in. Slightly edited now, I COULD put it in myself, but I'd rather see someone else do it, as a sign that we can move on. Here's what I'd like to see inserted in the FA on JLM, perhaps by MisterShiney or SchroCat:

(After subheading 1946–59): .....small roles with Croydon repertory.[38]

"In August 1946 he joined the Just William stage production of the second season of the radio series, playing the small part of Uncle Noel. The play was televised as a Christmas special over BBC television, making this his first television appearance." [Inline sourced to the bibliography section, where it should say "The Just William Society Magazine, edition 31, pp. 23, 29]

There, and notice I have been modest enough to keep my name out of it! I hope you gentlemen will be comfortable with this, and a few upset people on my end will be satisfied too. If you do this, and I think it improves the article, I will thenceforth publicly announce that I do not intend to sue anybody, report it on my website, and we can all say with finality "case closed". JohnClarknew (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like this would be an excellent solution and would recommend it myself on the JLM talk page, but it appears JLM had been on television a couple of times before 1946 - two roles in 1938. Are these unlikely to be true also? Worm^TT(talk) 07:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an excellent subject to be discussed on the JLM talk page, but I will not participate. For our purposes, I'm happy to see the above ", making this his first television appearance" deleted. If you're happy with that, and the others too, let's move forward. I await your decision, and thank you Worm. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been investigating - I assume that we're talking about the play at the Granville Theatre, I've managed to find a review from the Times newspaper archive (The Times, Wednesday, Dec 18, 1946; pg. 8; Issue 50637; col C ) which I can email to you if you do not have access, doesn't mention JLM though. I expect this is because Uncle Noel was such a small role. This would fit with the statement in the article that he was struggling to find work. I can't seem to find any evidence beyond the Just William Society Magazine that the play was televised - do you happen to know a date of broadcast? I've also found numerous other references to Just William in theatres around the same time, at the Palladium for instance, where they featured the radio cast - but as we've established JLM wasn't part of the radio cast.

I think that adding the full two sentences would be overkill, given the tone of the section. More appropriate would be .....small roles with Croydon repertory[38] and a role in a stage production of Just William with a reference to the magazine there. What are your thoughts about this solution? Worm^TT(talk) 10:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, if you check the Talk:John Le Mesurier page where the discussion has moved to, you will see that the Just William Society Magazine official researcher states as follows:

In December 1946 it played at the Granville Theatre in Fulham, London, and the performance on Monday 23 December 1946 from that theatre was broadcast live by the BBC on television. John Clark again played the title role, with John Le Mesurier being cast as Uncle Noel.

Since I cannot show it here because the JWS Magazine is not an "approved source", and they do not show it on their web page, I have included a scan of the Radio Times entry to you by email, showing, again, that JLM was on BBC TV in the special airing of the stage show at Christmas 1946. So I go back to my request, that the following goes into the article:

Under the Bibliography section

Just William Society Magazine. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, UK: Just William Society. 2012.

Then the online ref would read

....in which he played the minor part of Uncle Noel, also on stage, and appeared in the televised stage show as a BBC Christmas special. [1] [here pp=29-30 are indicated in the citation note.]

There, that's it. The owners of the page objected that this was "trivia", yet they then go on to mention that JLM's name had been mispelled in a published source. 2 cast members' names were mispelled in this RT listing, quite a common occurrence. Will you do this so I can move on? JohnClarknew (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there has been further recent editing by SchroCat which means the above wording has to be changed. My insertion, were I personally able to make it, would be

By the fall of 1946 he had joined the cast of the stage version of the Just William radio series at the Granville Theatre, Walham Green in the part of Uncle Noel, and appeared in the live BBC telecast which aired from the theater that year as a Christmas special.

The inline reference to pp. 29, 30 still apply, and the magazine appears as a legitimate source in the bibliography. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to commend followers who have bookmarked this page to the following article in The Daily Beast Discussing Wikipedia. Notice that I am a strong supporter and crusader of and for Wikipedia and its aims, although not necessarily its methods, especially with regard to BLP articles. JohnClarknew (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have an excellent source for celebrity BLP articles which seems to have been overlooked. You'll be able to reference some very unusual stories about famous people here. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another excellent article is raging on the Huffington Post about - you guessed it - edit warring and other problems surrounding international editions of Wikipedia. "Minor Wars" JohnClarknew (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article shows up at Fox, examining which are the most controversial subjects in WP by countries and languages. Access it here. Incidentally, I see that Dr. Blofeld has been having a go at the page that used to be according to me. But he's treating me a lot better than I did, so for that I thank him. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Chapter?

OK folks, you may not have me around much longer to kick around. I just got out of hospital. Colon cancer. Painful. I hope I'm not losing my fighting spirit. Meanwhile, have fun with the Daily Mail. Lots of sources to find if you want to exercise your POV in the article. Have a (Tea) party on me. At least I don't have the problems of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman... JohnClarknew (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's bad news. I'm very sorry to hear that. Regarding the pain, most pain associated with cancer can be eliminated or well-controlled, but unfortunately, most patients don't get that level of care due to shortcomings in medical training, regulatory restrictions, and the patient themselves not asking/demanding that their pain be controlled.

I wrote an article about it. It needs a bit more on visceral pain, but what it's got is useful. It will tell you all the different options open to you as you go on this journey.

Pain, nausea and fatigue induce a kind of dementia, and impair our ability to share warmth and affection with others. At this time you want your wits about you, your humour and all the affection you can give and get. So get and keep those symptoms under control! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony, for sharing this information. I get comfort from reading the sonnets of Wm Shakespeare. He puts the arc of our lives in bearable order. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're riffing on the bard and Wikipedia at Wikipediocracy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to Becki

Hi sweetheart, I assume you are a sweetheart. I see you are editing the John Clark (btw, there's no "e" on the end of my name, please be more careful with that) page maintained by Wikipedia, and removing any suggestion that I had much to do with the success of "Shakespeare For My Father". Well, you need to know that I, for 33 years, contentedly stayed in the background of Lynn's successes, allowing her to find her own identity, while gathering for herself the acclaim. I did not seek co-authorship. That was in the days before California Family Court thought nothing of marital mediation; if you want a divorce, you got it. There'll be lots about this in my forthcoming and highly quotable and sourceable book. FYI, here's the Variety review of our opening, under the management of Columbia Artists Management, Inc. when we toured the colleges around the country, prior to Broadway. Here's the review of the original opening in Santa Barbara. Yes, I put the show together, searched all the works of WS for suitable scenes, then Lynn wrote her dialogue, I edited it, rewrote the first act ending which wasn't working, staged it, financed it, and presented it after renting the Helen Haye's Theatre in a four wall deal. Thanks, editor Becki, but don't be so sharp you cut yourself.

Anyway, back to current errant newspaper sourcing. I see that a fellow British child actor David Spenser just died (yes, we're dropping like flies), and it is headlined that he was the "original radio Just William", or so says the Guardian and the BBC website, and was picked up by multiple other outlets. This is not true, and so I have added my comment to the articles where necessary. Thank God for the ability to append published comment to news articles and make corrections.

If anyone is interested, the performance history of rascally William Brown outside of the books goes like this:
I claim the title of "original", because I played William in the first two radio series (for the BBC). Series 1 went out from Oct 1945 to June 1946 (35 episodes). Series 2 from Sept 1946 - March 1947 ( 26 episodes).

Julian Denham took over from me for Series 3 from Oct 1947 - Dec 1947 (13 episodes) ; David Spenser played William in Series 4 from July 1948 - Oct 1948 (12 episodes); Finally Andrew Ray played him in the last radio series from Oct 1952 - Dec 1952 (13 episodes).

I also played William in the touring play in 1946/7, "Just William" - a play in three acts. Julian Denham took over the stage role for "More Just William" in late 1947, a part that was then played by Billy Nelson Junior, at, I believe, the Stoll.

William Graham played William in two films "Just William's Luck" (1947) and "Just William Comes to Town" (also called "Just William Goes to the Circus) (1948). The original film "Just William" was made in 1939 and starred Dicky Lupino as William, and Roddy McDowall as Ginger.

TV Williams are: Robert Sandford (1951), Dennis Waterman (1962), Denis Gilmore (1963), Adrian Dannatt (1977 ITV the rest on BBC), Oliver Rokison( 1994), Daniel Roche (2010).
This detailed information comes courtesy of the "Just William Society", who made me an honorary member. I believe that Wikipedia is interested in providing encyclopedically true content to readers.
Keep working fellow contributors, and please keep your personal preferences as low-keyed as possible. JohnClarknew (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please make corrections as I can't

On the BLP page about me, there's 3 glaring errors. Shakespeare For My Father, which I produced and presented alone, and directed, and co-wrote, played the Helen Hayes theatre on Broadway, not the Ford theatre; that theatre we played too and is in Washington DC, the theatre where Lincoln was assassinated.

I did not play Cedric Hardwicke in An Inspector Calls, I was featured in the play alongside him.

The third is that my venture into directing for television (House Calls) was not shared, and Hy Averback did not "co-direct" with me. There is nothing to suggest that this was so. I directed my wife alone. Thanks, anyone. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Anthony. One thing, the Hy Averback reference remains in the opening paragraph. Could you remove that too, please? JohnClarknew (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Wikipedia Investigating Suspicious Edits

How interesting! Read this: From the Wall Street Journal
It looks as if Wikipedia may have to SUE these rogue editors. I understand what's been happening, especially the bit about how a group of editors communicate offline and not through the talk pages (read many of my previous posts.)
But imagine, if WP sues, then because the rules say so, they will be canned by the work force i.e. the millions of volunteers who do the work! They'll be marginalized just like me! What fun! Oh well,
I'll just have to go now and write my $50 annual contribution cheque to keep in with them. And I advise others to do the same why not. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editors, my comment, my extirpation

That's verrrry interesting, but... When I saw that comments were invited on this important subject, of course I had a creative and practical one to make. I'm like that, but I'm blocked. But was that editing? I don't think so. So I made one; I said that paid editors should not only 'fess up, they should reveal exactly how much they were paid, and then be asked, on their honor, to make a contribution of 10 or 20 percent to the Foundation. Then I gave it the usual 4 tildes, and guess what? My usual signoff was red-lined, and when I clicked on it, I was TOLD I DON'T EXIST! Wow! I've been holocausted! Shoah'd! Like I said, verrrry interesting, but stupid - others were invited to take my name, since it's now available, as I've been extirpated! There will yet be two of us hanging about. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Pathé releases history and copyright to publish!

http://britishpathe.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/british-pathe-releases-85000-films-on-youtube/
This is great news! With a large grant from some public-minded charity, they have digitized their inventory. This gives rise to a VIQ (Very Important Question). Can this material be available for commercial purposes?

I'm writing a play about my childhood actor days back in the forties (Britain's Justin Bieber? http://www.cinemamuseum.org.uk/2014/a-just-william-evening/) before this aged living link has passed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL96bzQ53eo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxVYZj6nvtA
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/stars-then-and-now
and would like to use some as projections. They were always too expensive.

Can this be done now for free? Can any be used in commercials? Time to know is now. Unbelievable development.
I think the answer is to be found in the top right corner of the screen, where their logo is imprinted, giving them enduring credit. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David Attenborough, Culprit!

Headline in the Telegraph:
Sir David Attenborough, the broadcaster, admits one "scar on his conscience" from his early days in broadcasting: sanctioning the wiping of priceless Alan Bennett sketches.

I commented thus:
"He said that when confronted with the decision to spend millions of pounds building new vaults to house bulky black-and-white tapes of old shows, he has now disclosed he gave the order to 'get rid of the dross'. And of course when you're faced with that you have to decide whether to put the money into new products, new people, or cherishing the old."

Vaults do not cost millions of pounds. Choosing between products, people, and intellectual property, the property of others, does not fly or make sense. This man has no integrity whatsoever. He should be sued to the limit, class actions, for these crass decisions which he admits. No mercy! And, this cost the corporation (meaning us and the government) many millions from future sales.
I appeared with Eric Porter in BBC Play of the Month's "Cyrano de Bergerac" in 1968. It disappeared. We were told that a technician had pressed a delete button by mistake. Now we know the truth. Thanks, Mr Attenborough. JohnClarknew (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:JohnWiki1.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:JohnWiki1.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Redsky89 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have wrestled with what you say I should do, and intelligent as I am, I fail to make head nor tail of what I'm supposed to do. I think this is what makes many users afraid of editing Wikipedia, it has became the esoteric plaything of people like yourself. I only know that I have released the picture which I took of myself with my own camera and have released it without any conditions whatsoever. Is this the template? {{cc-zero}} Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd restore the picture according to what I've just said. As you know, I am blocked from doing anything outside of this page. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE RESTORE MY PICTURE, IT'S A SELFIE!

I'm blocked. Will somebody kindly restore my picture? It was taken by me, with my camera. Thought that was clear! Thanks much. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk Please restore my picture as I can't

I'd appreciate your doing this for me, AnthonyhCole. I don't know why someone would wish to do this after so many years. I am blocked even from getting into your user page to ask if you'd help me, again, as you did before. Have a great holiday season. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HUFFINGTON POST lets me post!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/another-look-at-trump_us_57bbc6cfe4b007f181999892? JohnClarknew (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have YOU donated this year?

I just sent in my fifty bucks which I do every year. It's a donation I feel good about, because I approve of the no advertising on this site. We need to keep it that way. Advertising is a betrayal, and leads to compromise and a conflict of interest. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned from London

I stayed at Plaza on the River Hotel and Club in Vauxhaul overlooking the Thames for the entire month of February, no secret, and not a single WK contributor who offended me came by to be served. Isn't that amazing! I was looking forward to meeting SchroCat or one of his pals, but no dice. Now here's an update which should clear things up, and these are 2 items that are linkable. Perhaps someone would like to add them to the references in the John Clark (actor) page. 1. "Letters to Lynn Redgrave: Martial Enlightenment for Modern Women (and Men) by Jeri Massi". This is available at Amazon Books, and details how my wife's Family Court appearances were Masterminded by a female Shotokan karate and Tang Soo Do master (like, telling her don't go, and leave the jurisdiction, much to the delight of her attorney who'd be disbarred for telling a client to do such a thing). Is there a SOL for reporting her to her dearly beloved law society? 2. "Whisky, Women, & Banana Peels" by Brandon Roscoe Maggart", also at Amazon. This book outlines his long-term secret affair with my wife. Pp 277-279 describes his eulogy at her funeral given in the Kent, Ct. church, while I was assaulted, and hauled off to a nearby hospital, all unaware of why I was being denied entrance at all costs. He says that his eulogy contained the words "Is it ok if I say shit in here?" and the Lady Minister said that would be fine. Funny as in strange how I have to wait nearly 18 years for the truth to come out. I am now ready to finish my book, because up to now, it didn't make believable sense. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On editing BLPs by the LP

This is JMO (Just My Opinion). Biographies of Living Persons, under strict rules, may not be edited by the named one. As many of my friends in the industry know, reputations have been shattered, as well as undeservedly exalted, by editors, some of whom are what I call fanboys, or the exact opposite. Why? Because there's a built-in “Conflict of Interest” component. So even if they are misquoted, or sourced to an unreliable mention in a newspaper or book, there’s nothing the subject can do about it. Does it matter? I think it does. I made up this scene to play it out in print and posted it on Jimbo Wales’s user page ages ago: Celebrity vs. Wikipedia, does 1-30 (The does will cover senior editors, founders and 30 users) CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: My client has been libeled in the pages of Wikipedia in an article written by users who operate under assumed names. JUDGE: Libeled? Does your client claim privacy privileges which are quite broad? CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: No your honor, he knows that he is vulnerable to general criticism and accepts that. He is what they call a Notable, and as such becomes part of a category called “Biographies of Living Persons”, and any content may only be changed at the discretion of other users, but not him. That is the crux of this action. He does not accept statements that hold him up to ridicule, scorn, and contempt. WP ATTORNEY: My client claims immunity as a public website. It merely passes on what is being said elsewhere. All statements are sourced. JUDGE: Does Wikipedia discriminate against any users? WP ATTORNEY: Absolutely not. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site, as we proclaim publicly. JUDGE: Can’t the plaintiff remove the offending language then? CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: No your honor. Under Wikipedia’s restrictive rules, celebrities cannot change anything in articles detailing their lives, beyond possibly a fact here and there. It contravenes what is known as their Conflict of Interest rule, which is a core principle, and which conflicts with their own rules which my friend just stated. JUDGE: I see. Then can you state your problem with individual users? CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: They don’t always provide a source for their unpleasant remarks, and many are the celebrities’ fans, and in this case haters. Often-times untrue statements remain unchallenged. JUDGE: Then I grant permission for you to bring any such users into court, as I rule they are not exempt. CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: But how do I find them? JUDGE: That’s your problem. (raises gavel) WP ATTORNEY: (Quickly) May I confer with my clients? (After a short interlude.) WP ATTORNEY: I think we can settle this, your honor. My clients are willing to change the rule. They will henceforth include the celebrity and notable BLPers as regular users. Of course, they will then have to conform to the same rules as everybody else. JUDGE: Sounds good to me. I will sign an order to that effect. Case dismissed. ************************ We will see what happens next. I think that the high ups, whoever they are, will think about making the change, and I predict that it will happen in the near future. Will WP fall apart? No, it will carry on in a much more acceptable way. I would hope to see the living celebrity actors, the sports heroes, the academics, the scientists, the music makers, the artists, the writers, the health specialists, yes even the politicians contribute to their spaces, and that they will become a lot more readable. There will be original research, indeed there will, but so what? Lies will come tumbling down, and truth will prevail in the long run. Because no one wants to look stupid, and the liars will eventually be caught out. Self-correcting. No longer can they blame their publicist or lawyer or agent or manager or friend for “getting it wrong, not my fault.” They can say what they want, and the burden will shift to others to prove if they are lying or outrageously stretching the truth, and so Wikipedia will become more transparent. I’d give it a new name. I’d call it WikipediaPLUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnClarknew (talk • contribs) 20:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to return, UNBLOCKED please

Hi, fellow Wikipedians, I'm ready now to come out of my prison, where I've been kept in solitary (it seems) for a few years now. I've been here, because I was so exasperated at the behavior of certain contributors who appeared to be ganging up on me, that I threatened to sue them if I could find them. Boom! That caused a trapdoor to open and swallow me up!

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

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

Request reason:

I am prepared to state, unequivocally, that I withdraw the threat, and have no intention to sue anybody in the Wikipedia universe. (My telephone provider and landlord, that's something else! Just kidding.) There! Hope that statement, made without duress of any kind, will put me back in the contributor pack again. I used to enjoy contributing, and have written several articles. Perhaps Worm That Turned might take me back.

Accept reason:

It's been a long time, and I don't remember the fine details of the case - however, reviewing my old emails and this talk page, I left it as "if you withdraw your legal threat, I will unblock immediately", and indeed you have. JohnClarknew, I should warn you that Wikipedia has changed quite a bit over the past few years, and editing with a conflict of interest is under a lot of scrutiny, so I do advise you to go carefully forward. Worm^TT(talk) 08:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JohnClarknew (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: - is this good enough for you? PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I want to be clear that my celebrity wife, Lynn Redgrave, was and is to be considered a British national treasure, and as such has many followers. I was bashed by certain of her fans in this space, but now that she's passed (2010), and due to a certain amount of attrition amongst her fans, the problem should no longer exist. I would edit her page to include information that she sustained a lover named Brandon Maggart for over 20 years of our marriage, but I see that I could not do that due to the conflict of interest label. Gee, I have to get back into the complexities of formatting and editing again. I haven't done it in so many years. Wish me luck and happy copy-editing, and exploring new articles, while I still have my wits about me.

JohnClarknew (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salad Days (musical), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JohnClarknew. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills) are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Will Hay, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Hawtrey and John Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jagged Edge (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For your contribution to 2I/Borisov. Thank you very much!

Hashar (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit on Chipperfield

It was correct apart from a missing hyphen:
... The common is criss-crossed by way-marked paths ... [14]
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello, I'm Thewolfchild. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to USS New Jersey (BB-62) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse.
Note: it was USS Missouri (BB-63) that had the nickname "Mighty Mo", not USS New Jersey (BB-62). fyi - wolf 02:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page...

...is getting quite lengthy (277+Kb / 100+ sections, dating back to 2008), as such you should consider archiving some of it. See H:ARC for more information. - wolf 03:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:JohnFamily0987.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:JohnFamily0987.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent logged-out edits / Account partially blocked

Hi, Mr. Clark. My name's Tamzin. I'm an administrator and SPI clerk, which means that one thing I do is look into cases where people may have edited from multiple accounts, or edited while logged-out. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnClarknew, I found sufficient evidence that you have been editing logged-out as 2603:8001:9641:A900:0:0:0:0/64. I am going to assume good faith and assume that you did not mean to do so, or at least did not mean to do so on pages you had edited while logged-in. However, even if you were not trying to mislead anyone, that means that you slow-motion edit-warred at Special:PageHistory/Shakespeare for My Father to restore unsourced content favorable to yourself, after you had been initially reverted in April. This is not acceptable. Someone with a conflict of interest on an article needs to edit it with the utmost care, if they edit it at all. Both adding unsourced material and restoring a reverted edit without discussion are inappropriate in such a context.

In light of this, I have blocked your account from editing that article, as well as your own biography and that of your late ex-wife. You are still able to edit all other pages that you were before, including these three articles' talkpages, where you are welcome to request edits. I would also strongly encourage you to use the edit-request process, rather than editing articles directly, on any page where you have a conflict of interest. Please note that, as a result of your account being under this restriction, you are not allowed to edit while logged out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good news re photos

Here you go - I finally was able to look into this particular issue and realized that the release was, in fact, valid. Image has been restored (and renamed, and moved to Commons). DS (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Header

AfD Nomination: John Clark (actor/director)

Richard Drury

Actors Equity

Players

Will Hay

Booth family

Silver Line (shipping company)

Vandalism?

NOT?

Tittell Brune

John Clark bio article

DYK

Jellybeans

License tagging for Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg

Re: Tittell Brune AGAIN

Smiley Award

Stainless Stephen

Psychodrama

Commercial vessel template

QE

John Wilkes Booth and citations

Personal observation about Where's Wiki Heading?

Record of content from Talk page on Dziekański Tasering incident at Vancouver airport, unedited

Can I use WP software for a book I want to write?

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sybil Thorndike as Joan of Arc.jpg

Zachary Turner

Stage or screen

Silver Line (shipping company)

John Clark

Grand Central Airport

Keach Freeman source

Trial movies

Help desk

Request to move article Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father incomplete

File copyright problem with File:Mary mccarthy 1379697f.jpg

Copying articles that end in a bracket

Jessie Matthews siblings

Proposed deletion of Junior Magazine

Orphaned non-free image File:Alien assessments.pdf

Orphaned non-free image File:Clark marriage announcement.pdf

Opt out of Bot messages

Orphaned non-free image File:Clark marriage announcement.pdf

Your identity.

Conflict of interest

My answer

Ownership and autobiography

Some answers

Talk page comments

Personal attacks

Information you may need

Your article

Speedy deletion nomination of Showcase theatre (performing arts group)

Re

Talk:Shakespeare for My Father/Memphisto

Thank you

Could we keep it civil please?

See Jimbo's page

Happy birthday John

File source problem with File:John8707.jpg

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

List of lost television broadcasts in the United Kingdom

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

John Le Mesurier

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

John Clark as William

April 2013

New Section

Speedy deletion nomination of Kay Hawtrey

Le Mesurier Talk Page

Kay Hawtrey

Legal Action

New book idea

Let's rethink biographies

A few ground rules

Bingo!

Final Chapter?

Hi to Becki

Please make corrections as I can't

Wikipedia Investigating Suspicious Edits