Jump to content

User talk:John/Archive 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

list of fastest motorcycles

[edit]

Can you look at this the talk page of the list of fastest motorcyles .Not sure who contact about dennis bratland. I think this guy is doing this because I spoke against him on the dodge tomahawk page and is now doing this. Or at least tell me who to contact sorry to post to you talk page I do not know how to just message someone. 72bikers (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at this. What is the issue? --John (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)The issue is clear, its about who has the biggest, um, bike! -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or the fastest. What I mean is that I am not sure this editorial disagreement rises to the level of needing admin intervention. Does it? --John (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking for my opinion? Wow. My answer would be no, it is a content discussion among experienced eds. I also think that some OR is going on among them too. The problem is the article itself is always going to be a "he said she said" discussion by its very nature. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on all counts. --John (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But should that be the basis of your administerial decision? ;) -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On this occasion my decision will probably be to watch and wait. --John (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has been resolved for now with some help. Sorry for not including more information as to problem. Just to briefly sum it up it was just that they were including a as tested track only motorcycle to a list of stock street motorcycles. And ignoring that facts I brought up to just go on and on about as if I took issue with how the test was performed and who tested it. I felt they were treating me this way because I spoke up against db on the dodge tomahawk page. 72bikers (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really???

[edit]

Is this really a good thing to do on someone's talk page? (Note I did not re-revert the changes and I began a discussion on the talk page...the article is a GA, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that happened. I have left them a polite message asking them not to do that again. --John (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

[edit]

Thanks

[edit]

Ten years ago this morning I started my Wikipedia account. 175,100 edits later I wish to place on record my gratitude for all the enjoyment I have had in editing here. Thanks to all who have made it so pleasurable. You know who you are. --John (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carnism

[edit]

I think "no consensus" is fair. I have to admit that the cleanup after found more useable material than I expected to find - still had to cut a huge chunk, but I was able to salvage about half the cut material to a new article, so that's not so bad, so probably for the best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and for the work you've done. That's a good result for the project. I hope you're feeling better. John (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my edit on David Bowie > Religion and Spirituality

[edit]

You deleted my edit here, just putting "ce" and "detriv" as the reasons. I have no idea what they are. My edit read: "As before mentioned, Bowie knelt and recited the Lord's Prayer at the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert on 20 April 1992." My view, which I hold quite strongly, is that the fact that he did kneel and pray like that should most definitely get a mention in that section.Boscaswell (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's trivia. Take it to article talk, please. --John (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

[edit]

January 2016

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to L. Neil Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | nationality = American]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed it. --John (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR and edit-warring at the Beatles' Love and "Savoy Truffle"

[edit]

John, how goes it? I wonder if you could intercede at Love (Beatles album) and Savoy Truffle, where Liron54 is continually adding unsourced information and edit-warring. This despite my starting a discussion at Talk:Savoy Truffle and posting a message about it on their talk page. The user's entire presence on Wikipedia seems to be dedicated to "correcting" details about the Beatles' Love remixes. I've nominated Savoy Truffle for GA, so the recent activity there is far from healthy, obviously. Thank you, JG66 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them a message. Let me know if it continues. --John (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, John. It would be nice to think that's the end of it.
Btw, that "warning" I left: not really my style (I picked up the habit from Dan56, in fact!) – but is it okay/acceptable that any old editor can dish those out, or is it an admin's prerogative? JG66 (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, anyone can warn anyone. I think you did the right thing. --John (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to hear. Thanks again, JG66 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

[edit]

Thank you

[edit]

Hello, Thank you for your edits. I am a fact checker. Wiki has been a great resource. Regards 

Lleddilecila (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help updating with Walmart article

[edit]

Hello John, I noticed you have made edits recently to the Walmart article. My name is Jenny and I’m one of Walmart’s official representatives on Wikipedia. I recently put forward a request for help on that article’s Talk page that an editor partially fulfilled. I’m wondering, would you be able to take a look at the remaining issues? To avoid any confusion, I have attached the remaining issues here. Please note that I also posted a request on WikiProject Companies Talk page. I’m hoping to fix, source and update existing content. Let me know if you have any questions on what I have proposed. I’m happy to answer. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Introduction

  • The sentence: "It has over 11,000 stores in 28 countries, under a total of 65 banners" is no longer accurate.
    • Walmart has over 11,000 stores in 27 countries, under a total of 72 banners.[1]
  • If two inline citations are needed at the end of the first paragraph saying Walmart owns and operates Sam's Club, can we replace the 2010 annual report with the 2015 annual report[1] to make the references more current?

Retail rise to multinational status (1990–2005)

  • The first sentence in this section has a "Citation needed" tag. To address this, I propose rewriting that sentence:
    • While it was the No. 3 retailer in the U.S., Walmart was more profitable than rivals Kmart and Sears by the late 1980s. By 1990, it became the largest U.S. retailer by revenue.[2]
  • At the end of that paragraph, there is another "Citation needed" tag. We can rewrite the following sentence to eliminate redundancy and add a proper inline citation. Perhaps this would work:
    • Walmart stores opened throughout the rest of the country, with Vermont being the last state to get a store in 1995.[3]

Operating divisions

  • The opening paragraph relies on the 2010 annual report, so is now outdated by five years. The following is the most accurate current description, based on the 2015 annual report:
    • The company offers various retail formats throughout these divisions, including supercenters, supermarkets, hypermarkets, warehouse clubs, cash-and-carry stores, home improvement, specialty electronics, restaurants, apparel stores, drugstores, convenience stores and digital retail.[1]

Walmart U.S.

  • Revenue figures are five years old. To bring this up to date, the figures should say $288 billion, or 59.8 percent of total sales, for fiscal 2015.[4]

Sam's Club

  • Again, the revenue figures are outdated. They should say Sam's Club's sales were $58 billion, or 12 percent, during fiscal 2015.[4]

Corporate affairs

  • The reference to the 2010 annual report can be switched to the 2015 annual report, which echoes the earlier report's business model.[1]
  • I propose adding mention of current CEO Doug McMillon after the second sentence of the Corporate affairs section:
    • Doug McMillon became Walmart's CEO on February 1, 2014. McMillon began his Walmart career in warehouses while in high school. He has also worked as the head of Sam's Club and Walmart International.[5]

Citation details

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Walmart 2015 Annual Report" (PDF). stock.walmart.com (PDF). Walmart. p. 19. Retrieved 6 October 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription=, |registration=, |editors=, and |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ Hayes, Thomas C. (28 February 1990). "Wal-Mart Net Jumps By 31.8%". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 July 2015.
  3. ^ "Timeline: An Overview of Wal-Mart". PBS. 20 August 2004. Retrieved 21 July 2015.
  4. ^ a b "Walmart 2015 Annual Report" (PDF). stock.walmart.com (PDF). Walmart. p. 20. Retrieved 6 October 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |subscription=, |registration=, |editors=, and |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ O'Keefe, Brian (4 June 2015). "The man who's reinventing Walmart". Fortune (magazine). Retrieved 21 July 2015.
Thank you for the note, User:JLD at Walmart. I see your proposals at the Walmart talk page and it seems reasonable to update the information on your company's article. You are doing the right thing to raise these requests in discussion rather than adding them directly to the article. I will have a look at them and see what we can do. --John (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

[edit]

TFA nomination for Bristol

[edit]

Thanks for your comments about the quality of the prose at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Bristol. The article Bristol has since kindly been copy edited by User:Corinne (and others) on behalf of the GOCE. Do you think this has resolved the issues or are there still outstanding problems? Do you think it is worth renominating at TFA requests or shall I just forget it?— Rod talk 20:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take another look. --John (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year?

[edit]

Hi John, I presume you meant 2016, not 2015, with this edit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. Thank you. --John (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLUE

[edit]

DYK that ...every time we WP:AGF, somewhere in heaven an angel gets her wings. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Angel of Limerick
LOL, that's very good. On the other hand AGF is not a suicide pact, and most damage is done by people thinking they are doing the right thing. --John (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phew... what a relief that you've not been hacked by some two-litres-of-whiskey-a-session guy, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

MOSFLAG

[edit]

Re your revert. As you are aware, I have started a discussion at WP level. FYI, MOSFLAG already states In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. My edit was merely to clarify that. Your particpation at the discussion is requested. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up your ping with this message. I think you are right that the lists or tables clause already cover instances like this. All the more reason that there is no need to add this as an exception to the MoS. I will give my opinion at the discussion before I go to bed tonight. --John (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP is back

[edit]

The IP 85.130.221.249 who vandalizes the Sting page is back. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned. I would be quite happy to block if it continues. --John (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in on Walmart article

[edit]

Hello John. We talked here before about my suggested updates to the Walmart article, and you said you would look at them to see what could be done. Please let me know if you have any questions on any of the changes I've suggested. I think they're fairly straightforward and uncontroversial, but I'm happy to discuss anything you might see as an issue. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. --John (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

[edit]
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you were are a strong candidate and I am sure you will do fine with the tools. Having said that, if there is ever anything you need advice or support over, please don't hesitate to ask. --John (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

[edit]

Phil Collins

[edit]

We have a consistently disruptive IP user on this page 217.149.252.162. Please could you give him a warning because it's getting quite repetitive now. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. I can see the IP's point. This might be a case for compromise. Have you tried a talk page discussion? --John (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this section would benefit from cleaning up, which I'm now doing. However, specific criticisms of Collins by other prominent artists, such as in song lyrics, does seem relevant to the wider issue of Collins' particularly negative profile. It would be nice if they would discuss instead of just arbitrarily removing. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree on all counts. Stuff like this is better sourced to a book or other "serious" source; it isn't good enough to source it from song lyrics etc. Good work on the cleanup. --John (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up this whole section and removed a lot of superfluous or repetitive comments while maintaining the essence of the criticism of him and his work. I can't see any problem with the reliability of the source for the lyrics of the Paul Heaton song, therefore I believe it should remain and is relevant to negative perceptions of him by other artists. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of what you have done. For the rest I will see you in article talk. Thanks for raising this with me here. --John (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charming new contributor

[edit]

Dear Mr. Admin, would you care to look at this edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charming indeed. I gave them a special barnstar. --John (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Problem/Thanks for the Welcome!

[edit]

Hi John, thank you for the greeting and the information. I've been a long time reader and slowly working my way into editing, so all of the information you provided is very welcome.

On another note, I just undid some vandalism on the Josiah Willard Gibbs featured article. Upon looking at the address that made the edit (50.206.252.26) it seems to have a long history of vandalism. I tried to report this on the block page, but it didn't seem to post successfully. Perhaps you could tell me what I did wrong, or look into the problem yourself?

Again, thanks for the help!

Hoff0839 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I am watching them. --John (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hoff0839 (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac's comments

[edit]

You restored the incorrect, unsourced version here [1] Please look at talk. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Right place I think. I'm asking you to look at the correctness of your edit and to consider reversing it, cause you never posted on the talk page and it looks like you are making an admin decision in a content dispute. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. Does it? --John (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language matter

[edit]

Hello again John! If possible, perhaps you could help me with a few questions related to the English language. Please just leave it unanswered, if you don't care or have no time etc. I already have a great deal to thank you for. So please just ignore my questions if you for instance think that I should have known the answers - or for any other reason what so ever. But I ask the questions after having searched my old "English Grammar" school-book as well as elsewhere. My troubles are the else rather simple words while / whilest or whilst (Lately have I also got confused over the spelling) and similar among / amongst (if the latter even is correctly spelled). If you perhaps could give me a brief explenation of how and when one shall use the "+st form", so to speak, then you would help me a lot. I don't like to not understand things which else is of interest to me. But cheers in any case ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. I regard the -st forms (it's "whilst" by the way) as old-fashioned and always use while and among. I note that while is one of the most over-used words on Wikipedia. If any of my TPS can give a more erudite answer, please chip in. And don't even get me started on unbeknownst! --John (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From "The Helium Insufficiency" episode of The Big Bang Theory:
Leonard: It says right here on Wikipedia. "A Mexican standoff is a confrontation between at least three parties."
Sheldon: How can you trust Wikipedia if they use "between" to refer to three parties?
Helium Man: They should’ve used "among", right?
Sheldon: Or "amongst", if they were feeling whimsically archaic.
Somewhat inevitably, Mexican standoff had to be protected from whimsically archaic Sheldon Cooper fans. --Hillbillyholiday talk 01:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing what Wikipedians can find to disagree over. Remind me to tell you about the article with no e's in it some time. It's a good story. --John (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True dat. Would that article be Gadsby perchance? --Hillbillyholiday talk
That was indeed it, and well done for digging that out. I haven't thought of User:John J. Bulten in a while. Looks like he has moved on from the project. --John (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John and others! I will not use "whilst" in the future (and I never had - including "whilest"). And yes, it´s indeed interesting what people can disagree about. I never really was involved my self, but the Danish (pastry) or Danish pastry discussion (around a year ago), is the worst or best example which I have read. Boeing720 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

[edit]

Vincent van Gogh‎

[edit]

Hi John, VvG is consistently the nr 1 or 2 most popular visual arts page by reader views, and myself and Modernist are trying to organise a FAC push. Iridescent sort of recommended that I pull in the best copyeditors the site has, so here I am, cap in hand. Have seen over the years what you are capable of and know the level of skill, asking for help. Have also asked Eric and Ling. Wishlisting and best, Ceoil (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am really flattered that you ask me and I will do what I can to help you. --John (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very impressed with the manner in which you have tended to the page. Concise, elegant, and tight writing is very pleasing, though not something I am capable of, I learned a long time ago. Thank you *very* much for all your work. Your comments on talk are well made and I have begun to address, though am still kicking about ideas; hope you will continue to engage. Ceoil (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a great pleasure. Thank you for asking me to help. --John (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

refs for vincent

[edit]

I hope to standardize the citation format... We might want to discuss...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see and applaud the work you are doing. I think I will leave you to it; you look like you know what you are doing. --John (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I meant, when you are deleting or adding quotes. But the system for refs hasn't been agreed on .. the books look MLA-sh, inconsistently, and the web cites are even more inconsistent... but I have to run now until tomorrow..   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Favour

[edit]

You've helped me before so I wondered if you might again. Earlier this month I came across Ann Cryer whose article appears to have been the victim of a hoax, trivial nonsense added to it apparently sourced to the local paper. It seems to have gone on for years. I removed it earlier this month and it has been reverted by an IP who has inserted it previously. Two views on the talk page are in favour of its removal. Do you think its worth protecting it? I rarely get involved with BLPs but I don't think a hoax should be constantly repeated here. J3Mrs (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. J3Mrs (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. What a piece of nonsense. Let me know if you need any other help. --John (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica

[edit]

Greetings John! Can you have a look at this: User talk:Stealthepiscopalian#WP:EDITWAR at Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica? The user seems to be edit warring at Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, introducing unreliably sourced material to the article. Brevity is the soul of wit, so in order to avoid repetition, I presented the case to the user directly, and tried to engage him in conversation. The response wasn't too positive unfortunately.

Should you have any question, I'd be happy to explain things in more detail! Thanks and cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them and will block if there is any repetition. Let me know if you need any other help. --John (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. It didn't take that long before some mysterious IP popped up and restored the disputed material[2]. Seems that the IP has the total of two edits during his editing career[3], both focusing on the same scope of articles. Such a weird coincidence, isn't it? :-D Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... careful with that block button, you John. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Hah, too late. I blocked for socking; it seems blindingly obvious that this is the same user. --John (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jayaguru-Shishya, you also need to be careful about 3RR there. --John (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your notice John, I am aware of that. Sometimes in many a low-traffic article I find it a bit of a grey area when one single editor is on the warpath against multiple other ones. In this case it'd mean three, and I considered it reasonable to restore the consensus version since it might take months for some other user to lay his eyes on the matter. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In a situation like this sometimes a slow revert is better than a quick one. No worries, I think it is all taken care of now. --John (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tranent

[edit]

I apologise if i was incorrect, but isn't Tranent in the Edinburgh Metropolitan area, its just you removed my edit, again if I'm inaccurate, i apologise :) And wasn't my eating & drinking section accurate? (Anonymous (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Tranent is in East Lothian. The eating and drinking section needs to be backed up with sources or it looks like promotion. --John (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I understand about the eating and drinking section, but a I'm certain that even though Tranent is in East Lothian it is still a town in the metropolitan area of Edinburgh [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKIWL435495 (talk • contribs)
We would need a source for that. Wikipedia is not a source. --John (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I'll figure out where the person who edited that page got the information from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKIWL435495 (talk • contribs)
Ok, if you can find a valid source (not Wikipedia) then it is fine to add that to the article. --John (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could help me with something, I'm creating a new school page and i want to use the schools badge from the schools website, would this count as copyright if i added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKIWL435495 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If you are thinking about Sanderson's Wynd Primary School, that probably wouldn't be considered notable by our standards. So basically, don't bother would be my advice. --John (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i thought that would be okay, seeing that there was enough information, sorry I'm new to creating pages, i normally just stick to editing small things on other pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKIWL435495 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Trinity Abbey

[edit]

Hi John.! I agree with you about the importance of Wikipedia, I believe it is the great opportunity for “lost” information to surface in the story. I want to contribute to Wikipedia dominance in the world encyclopedia, for that I donate funds to Wikipedia, because there is a cost to keep it going and growing. Sometimes I have or find information in old books, or original sources etc. now in the internet, they give solid accuracy in a story considered important. For that I am an occasional editor user. I make mistakes, I am not Wikipedia savvy, for 30 years living in South Texas 2 miles from the US Mexico border, everyone here speaks Spanish, lost my New York accent, maybe I got a Mexican one with such narrative flaws. Can you please help me John? Since you reversed my contribution on Chiapas, Danielle Mitterrand and Oliver Stone. I do want Wikipedia to have that info. It is the most important event in Chiapas history, for 2 years this attracted world media interest. Saving a genocide in Chiapas when the Mexican army, had surrounded the Zapatistas, with an announced by Mexican President Zedillo order to find capture or kill Daniele Mitterrand opposed to this it is her most important live achievement, it is fair she get credit for that. No matter that Oliver Stone as he openly stated, his real intention, to visit the Zapatista Sub Commander Marcos in La Realidad Chiapas in the Mexican Lacandon Jungle, was to get the story rights for a film about Marcos and the Zapatistas, Mr. Stone opposed to the massacre and the media attention his visit attracted was crucial. It is important to have this in his story. Can you please help me? I be grateful. --Trinity Abbey (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Make a simple statement at Talk:Oliver Stone, provide your references and I will help you to get it into shape for the article. --John (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John, It is kind of you, I appreciate that.!

--Trinity Abbey (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just place my statement at Talk:Oliver Stone, with references as you instructed me John. I be very happy and grateful to see it in shape and ready.! Thanks.! --Trinity Abbey (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have formatted your post and made some suggestions. --John (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John on March 5, I posted at the Talk:Oliver Stone, the Proposed addition (rephrased) fo The Zapatista Crisis as you requested. No corrections, or questions have followed, I suppose it is all right if I post it on the Oliver Stone wikipedia page. I appreciate all your tutorial help to achieve this. It has been a good experience, Thank you --Trinity Abbey (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support that. I think it still needs work. --John (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John I was in the idea, I was doing great.! je je je, you tell me what is to do, please, thank you, --Trinity Abbey (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at article talk. Your proposal is too long, badly written, poorly sourced and breaches NPOV. --John (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

[edit]
Thanks for helping me understand how to create pages i really appreciate your help! So thanks ever so much IDKIWL435495 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. --John (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ping on talk vincent

[edit]

Did the ping on talk Vincent work?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... and ps (read above first) you're not supposed to change the engvar on a direcct quote. AmerEng is OK for use in BritEng articles if the AmerEng is within a direct quote.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It looks horrible like that. I certainly don't think we should be adding more quotes. --John (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw and looked but do not understand what the issue is. I am a writer and copy-editor, not a coding guru. Can you explain what the issues are in simple language? --John (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 March

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ReferenceBot. I think I've fixed it. --John (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

[edit]

SPI (Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica)?

[edit]

Greetings John! Could you have a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica? It seems that a new editor has popped up[4], and that his only edits during his entire editing history (10 pieces) deal with the very deletion process of Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica.[5] A possible sock-puppet, perhaps? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised. --John (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, this is getting rather hilarious. I think user Chris troutman put it well in his response:[6]

D1s0b3y, You can't start a paragraph by saying you "just signed up about an hour ago" and then tell us what you think based on your "experience on Wikipedia". Independent and reliable sources have been necessary to make claims of notability for years as I've told aspiring editors like you over at WP:AFC.

Could you please run a check on this user? Sorry, I've never ran into SPI case before. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that too. I am not a checkuser and would need to open a SPI just like you would. Sorry. --John (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, indeed... Well, just a new procedure for me to learn! Thanks still Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the user is a mere single-purpose account, but user Stealthepiscopalian got indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting.[7] Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alas, sorry

[edit]

(←) I am acutely aware of my absence from this page but have not have had a breakthrough in encapsulating his breakthrough as a household name. The sources we might want to use are scattered, so far as I have found. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess theoretically there's no such thing as a leader involved, but I very much defer all opinions to yours on this article. I am in no way a visual arts guy (though I deeply appreciate VvG's work). So while you are engaged in sifting this key topic, the !vote that has come up is missing input from the one whom I at least consider to be the key guy. I dunno if others feel the same or similar. But OTOH, to gain a sense of perspective, if work on Vincent sits still for a couple weeks, western civilization probably will not collapse (unless Trump is elected POTUS in the interim...)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the GOP has built is base enough. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]
The John award of balance and measure
For consistently being right and providing a rock in often stormy seas. And because of all the other things. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] File:Sonic1991b.jpg
Wow, thanks a lot. That's way too generous. --John (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Title TK/archive1

[edit]

Hi John. I hope you are well. In the past you very kindly provided some copy-editing to this article. It has evolved since then, and I was wondering whether you might have time to take another look for this Peer Review. If you don't have time, no worries at all. Thank you very much! Moisejp (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have a look. Thank you for asking me! --John (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Ann Cryer?

[edit]

You kindly protected the article but the IP is back adding rubbish as soon as the protection expired. Anything else you can do? J3Mrs (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected again. Let me know if this nonsense continues. --John (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will. J3Mrs (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Unblock User

[edit]

It's been over a year. Could you please unblock user:TopherKRock? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.241.240 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest asking @Jpgordon: by pinging them at your logged-in user talk, or else posting an unblock request there. I can help you with that if you like. I also suggest not continuing to edit while logged out as this may be seen as block evasion. Good luck. --John (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clivel 0

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivel 0 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look, John. I regret introducing you to this nonsense. --Hillbillyholiday talk 10:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. All in a day's work. --John (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that the Pope is Jewish? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty. Nothing would surprise me. These areas are a hotbed of hatred on both sides. All we can do is fairly and conservatively reflect what the best-quality sources say. --John (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conservatively??! OMG, you're just part of the evil anti-Jewish Tory-Party-Google Conspiracy! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good example of what I mean. --John (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, would you even recognise one? --Hillbillyholiday talk
Lol! Now I know why my Star of David and the Jewish flag I draped over the old bridge in Liswerry proved so unpopular. "Mr Black123, 70 from Newport, said: "The community is very small. There’s myself, Abraham Davidson, two others in their 90s and a couple in Blackwood." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the wonderful "celebrity gossip" source Daily Mail appears - and the people using it do not even recognize what it states as fact - but want to use the sensational headlines rather than stick to conservative use of sources. What is really funny is one editor who favours using the Daily Mail in this case, rails against it everywhere else <g> [8] (In fact, I find no source of "celebrity gossip" to be better than Charmin ) Collect (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noted it. Affairs like this can bring out the worst in people. Well done for the conservative and responsible stance you are taking here. --John (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal (chemical element)

[edit]

G'day John, could you have a look at this relatively short article before I submit it to FAC? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I have made some initial edits and will comment further at article talk. --John (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits seem a little draconian, John. I fear it may all end in tears. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit there. It's quite a nice article but I think somewhat over-quoted. What do you think? --John (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very useful and well written. But I was amazed when I got to the bottom of the page and it seem to positively explode with sources! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 1 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crabb

[edit]

Might you look at my edits and talk page comments where I find a Daily Mail claim about a person's living father (that the father attacked the mother physically) based on a "quote" from the son to be unusable? ArbCom officially found me to be a bad BLP person :( Thanks.

Please also look at [9], [10], and the like. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. --John (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You agree: fair enough. But then you removed a lot of copy, written by others who disagree. Please engage in the discussion in future, and at least use proper English. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean in an administrative capacity I disagree with adding material on a living person sourced to a tabloid. We mustn't do that. --John (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kitty Genovese

[edit]

Re: Talk:Murder of Kitty Genovese#Split proposed – I would like to know why you closed that discussion? It remained stagnant for many months. Then, in the past few days, it started getting a lot of activity and discussion. (The case received much renewed interest because the perpetrator dies just a few days go.) Why would you close it right in the middle of that renewed and revived discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the polite question. I came to the article to check whether it had been updated with Moseley's death, and saw it had. I also saw a pretty old article improvement tag, and checked the talk page. I noted that although the discussion had been open for four months there was no clear consensus to split the article, so I closed it. I read the arguments closely and this included the datestamps. I have just reread the discussion and I think I stand by the close. I was particularly swayed by @TheBlinkster:'s argument. I probably lean more towards that interpretation of WP:BIO1E but I accept that yours could be a legitimate one. It just seems that on this particular discussion, people don't agree with you. Although you're right, there was more discussion in the days following Moseley's death, I do not think the discussion was trending towards a consensus to split either. I think that even on review I would stand by my close. I have edited the article 32 times, including my format of references and removal of the split tag earlier today. I do not think this makes me WP:INVOLVED however as I regard this as a non-controversial act. Do you feel very strongly about the matter? --John (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks. No, I don't feel strongly abut this issue. In fact, I have "moved on". I did notice, however, that you closed the discussion with what I deemed was "odd timing". The discussion was dormant for many months (since December, I think?). In the past few days -- since Moseley's death -- the page (and discussion) started getting a lot more renewed/revived interest and postings. I found that quite an odd time to "halt" the proceedings, right in the middle of a new wave of discussion. Being curious about the timing, I decided to ask you about it. Thanks for the explanation. And, again, I don't feel strongly about it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's obviously no harm in raising the matter again a few months down the line if the situation changes. --John (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before redirecting schools...

[edit]

Please remember that generally schools with senior high school/sixth form college/upper secondary school (different countries have variations of them) are generally notable even if secondary sources are not (yet) present in the article. I undid the merges of the English-speaking and French international schools in Harare, Zimbabwe for that reason. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the notability norms around schools so those two redirects were errors on my part. Thank you for correcting them. --John (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Terry Wogan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • along with France's [[Jean-Paul Gaultier]] and Finland's 2007 Contest host [[Jaana Pelkonen]]).<ref>{{cite episode|title=Eurovision Song Contest 2008|episodelink = Eurovision Song Contest 2008|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, Bracketbot, I'll get right over and fix it. --John (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll presume you know better but

[edit]

Non-free images aren't allowed on talk pages. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How tedious. I suppose you are right. You were wrong though to remove it from one of the uses it had a specific rationale for. --John (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal (chemical element)

[edit]

Hi John, could you please change the article language template for this article to Australian English? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. John (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you happen to overlook actioning this one? Sandbh (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To remain spirit!

[edit]

Is that really a qualified translation from German? If not, perhaps "Keep [the] spirit!" or "Stay, Spirit!" are better translations? 178.232.213.58 (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's from the film's subtitles. John (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John de Gray

[edit]

Can you keep an eye on this article? Already had issues at Walter de Gray (detailed on my talk page) and now running into the same issues at John de Gray. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. --John (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axl Rose

[edit]

Opinion on http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20103471,00.html as a detailed source for comments about Seymour in the Rose BLP? RfC on the talk page, but I fear this underscores my opinions about any source of "celebrity gossip" being used on an actual encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking. --John (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just to clarify ... I didn't like the "and", but I do want you to make edits when you see things you don't like (even though I won't always agree). You made the right call that something was wrong with the sentence ... I moved it and dropped the offending "but". I was being too conciliatory towards the original wording here. (Fortunately, I'm getting less conciliatory with advancing age.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Just one"? Really? I thought you had an eye for good wording! "Just one" is dreadful, like something a teenage girl or an advertising exec would write. --John (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound right to me, but my mind is forever open on BrE usage so I'd like to hear more. I'm getting more than two million hits for "just one" in Google's corpus of published books, and none of the hits I looked at seemed breezy or overhyped. That meaning for "just" seems to be listed in standard BrE grammars, such as Cambridge. - Dank (push to talk) 11:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other edit, I'm not open to changing the verb tense but I can change the verb ... I tried "would inhabit", does that help? - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just one Cornetto, give it to me. No, the verb tense is even worse. It's partly a British American thing; "would" is the conditional tense and it sounds corny to use it to express the present or recent events. --John (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the future-in-past tense. This has been discussed at least twice at WT:MOS over the years. I can change the verb if it will help ... "would continue to inhabit" maybe? [Thinking] Yes. - Dank (push to talk) 11:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's both. When given a choice between a longer clunkier tense with two meanings, and a simpler, shorter one with only one, I would almost always go for the latter. --John (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskeymouth is merging "Death of Prince" into Prince (musician) (and will probably edit-war over it)

[edit]

Just letting you know. I placed an alert on the article's talk page at Talk:Prince (musician)#Brace for impact. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, let's hope not. I have asked them not to do it again. Let's see what happens. --John (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion? Good idea. But I know I'm in the minority on the whole "have lots of sub articles on things so we can cram in lots of details that don't belong in an encyclopedia". Some people seem to think we're an archive, not an encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong opinion about this but the edit in question was not a good one. --John (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I heed John's advice. However, know that softlavender is an extremely disruptive and contentious editor. Just look at all the fights and warnings he's received on his talk page. He is very vindictive. On the other hand, I was being logic and a little bit bold to merge the redirected death article. Rather than edit it, softlavender just reverts is completely. Yet, I will let this disruptive editor win. He adds no content, just disruption. In contrast, I have made some really good edits recently, adding to facts not previously in Wikipedia. Softlavender is an edit warrior who adds nothing to Wikipedia but drama. This is too bad that he is allowed to be so destructive. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Re: Prince

[edit]

Why are you and Soft Lavender so attached to this possessive pronoun? WHOSE is used with persons only. Check any grammar book you like. I am not a sock, I am not interested in edit wars, I have neither the time nor the energy, nor the interest, really, but if there is a grammatical error, it should either be corrected or rephrased. I was not aware until this moment that this MINOR error has been corrected repeatedly, to no avail. Get over yourselves. Let it go. It is allowed to pass in fanzines and blogs, but we can do better. And we will. Eventually. Don't slow the process. Thank you for all your contributions. Rags (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic English grammar; I learned it at school when I was 10. If you missed out on it at the time (I assume you are more than 10), it's never too late to educate yourself. --John (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partington

[edit]

Me again, a new user is "improving" this article. Can you help yet again? J3Mrs (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. --John (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks J3Mrs (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Title TK/archive1

[edit]

Hi John. How are you doing? I'd like to thank you again for the batch of copy-edits you did to the Title TK article a while back (as well as the other batch you did previously). I have now nominated the article at FAC. If you happen to be interested in contributing any comments, I'd be really grateful. Also, if you ever need help with articles you're working on, please don't hesitate to ask me. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. --John (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kesteven and Sleaford High School

[edit]

Hi John, I noticed that you have removed a large part of the curriculum section on this page. I am struggling to see your rationale for doing so. I concede that the article itself is in pretty poor shape – it's on my to-do list to bring up to GA, as I have the other two schools in the area, but IRL time limits and the difficulty in obtaining reliable information mean it will be a while before I get round to it. It's also probable that this section could be trimmed a bit. But the section in question outlines what sort of education the people who go to the school receive, and what choices are available for them to study at GCSEs, all appropriately sourced. Certainly the latter choices are not set in stone beyond English and Maths, and so the information is unique to the school. Given that it is a centre of learning, it is probably worth having some brief summary of what the girls will be studying. This seems to the attitude taken in the two British school FAs ([11] and [12]), which both contain more detailed sections on their curriculum than I have included in KSHS; similar can be said for the GAs (e.g. [13], [14]). Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

To what degree is this statement true: "the information is unique to the school"? If this is truly the only school in the England and Wales education system to offer this combination of courses then it would naturally be vital to record it. If this was true, we would also expect a wealth of third party sources such as the TES to have picked up and published details of the school's "unique" curriculum. Is this the case? If it is, there is no problem and we can add the material backed up by these many high-quality third-party sources as references. If on the other hand, as I suspect, the school has a curricular model which is completely standard and generic and is therefore of interest only to those who work and study at the school, then Wikipedia is not the place for it and it can continue to reside at the school's own website where it belongs. As regards GA and FA articles and using them as "precedents", while some peer-review is generally better than none, in my opinion the GA process has collapsed to the point where it is effectively worthless. The FA process is a little better, but it is still extremely common to find major errors in Featured Articles. I would rather argue out the matter on its own merits I think. --John (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what I meant by "unique" was that the combination is not going to be the same in all state schools because the school has the freedom to include extra subjects. Aside from English, Maths and Science, it is up to the school to pick what courses to offer and whether and how to arrange the teaching of these courses. That is information that parents may well be interested in, and as far as I am aware Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. We also should not assume knowledge – someone could be reading this in South Africa or in the United States, and so a summary of the curriculum would be useful to them. I understand of course that the curriculum here is not particularly uncommon, which is why it was discussed in only one succinct paragraph. But it does inform the reader about what is happening in the school. By your logic, no state school articles should have information on their curriculum at all unless their curriculum is radically different (which it won't be, because they are state schools); it seems unusual to me that we have an article about a school—and potentially articles about most British schools—without any mention of the learning that goes on in it/them. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Third-party coverage is often a good guide for what it is worth including in these articles. If the school has substantially the same curriculum as every other school in England, is it your contention that every single high school article would list all the subjects the school currently teaches, sourced to the school's own website? That probably wouldn't work for me or for the project. See also WP:NOTDIR. Would a link to National Curriculum for England work? --John (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopulated places!

[edit]

Hi John....can't turn my back on this place for a moment....

Check my talk page.

Regards

Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tch. I see User:Bastun moved it back. I commented at talk. How are you keeping these days? --John (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

link title

Olivia de Havilland

[edit]

Hello John, hope you're keeping well. Sorry to trouble you, but a peer review for the above is taking place here, and although probably not your area of interest or expertise, I wondered, as a copy editor, if you could take a look to either confirm or counter my concerns that the article is far too bloated for its own good. I'm trying to work with the nominator, who has plans to see it at FAC, but they appear to be reluctant to cut, what I consider to be, most of the bloat out of the article. I've boldly deleted a swarm of information from the first section which highlights de Havilland's relatives - as far back as William the Conquerer, if you please - which I know will be most unpopular with the nominator when he/she next logs back on. Any advice from someone that knows would be most appreciated. CassiantoTalk 22:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to take a look tomorrow but I need to get to bed now. I promise to give it my best shot. --John (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; boy, are you going to need that sleep! CassiantoTalk 22:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some friendly advice: "Hush... Hush, Sweet John" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Gosh, I see what you mean. --John (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Always an education, thanks very much for those. CassiantoTalk 10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thanks for saying so. It's a super article, well done. --John (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Edward II of England

[edit]

Hi John, we have a persistent IP here, do you think page protection is in order? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP. Let's see what happens next. --John (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skylab

[edit]

Hey John, I was just wondering why you reverted my edit on the Skylab article. Let me know, thanks! Kees08 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use image files to convey text in this way. --John (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EgyptAir Flight 804

[edit]

Surprised this one has escaped your patented tabloid-purge-o-matic app. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Duly removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJV11181988

[edit]

You recently warned this user about edit warring on the Walmart article, just to let you know he has another one going on at Template:Infobox Burger King as well. This one involves adding logos to an template in violation of NFCC guidelines and changing financial numbers that were recently updated from the company's 10-k statement. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am watching. --John (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowhead Trail

[edit]

Why did you delete Yellowhead Trail, rather than just revert the cut and paste move? 117Avenue (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was asked to. Is there a problem with it? --John (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the redirect has been there a long time, and the page history should reflect that, it shouldn't have just been deleted. Also, I can't remember where the redirect went to. 117Avenue (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It went to Alberta Highway 16. --John (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice summer !

[edit]

Hello John ! Where I live (lat 55,85 long 12,5) has temperatures risen quite a lot the latest days and it's getting close to +25C every time the sun cames through the clouds. It is a feeling of summer and the nights are pleasant. No more freezing before November, I hope. And I wish the same for you ! I hope You will have nice weather in Eddinburgh - and a nice summer elsewise as well. Boeing720 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too. --John (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And give my regards to "Auld Reekie" (music "So Good To Me" by Chris Malinchak) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Northern Ireland Flags

[edit]

Hello. I see we have been doing similar things in warning people about the above topic, though probably coming at it from different articles. I hope I am not treading on any of your toes in what I have been doing. I've been trying to get people to work with each other more rather than work against each other on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom. Of course, some editors are highly displeased at being called into account trying to allege administrator threats and abuse, and there is overlap between the editors we have each had dealings with. I've been trying to identify editors who don't seem already to have warnings about discretionary sanctions and to then warn them. I've also had to remind some of them that the sanctions are not just about 1rr editing but cover other questionable behaviour.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DDStretch for your help. Two heads are wiser than one. --John (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent

[edit]

Hi John, it looks like a first week in July FAC nom for the Vincent van Gogh article - it will undergo a major structural change between now and then; can you please keep an eye; your copy edits and advice were really great and appreciated, I would like to think you are still watching over. A page like this needs serious word smiths. Ceoil (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I will be happy to take another look. Did we ever resolve the thing about reference formatting? Great working again with you. --John (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Citation style is usually a matter of preference, and as far as I am concerned its consistent now, and unobtrusive in edit mode. So yes. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of Newspaper Logos

[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you removed the logo of The New York Times from the article infobox. I also noticed that the logos for the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post articles were removed too.

Is there some kind of style guide change regarding the logo? Why are the logos being removed?

Thanks Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will search it out for you. In the meantime you might consider what encyclopedic purpose these served. None, would be my argument. --John (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are. As I said a few years ago, The intention when the logo field was introduced was to substitute in cases where there was no image of a front page. It was never intended to display both. --John (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Should we do this for The Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times as the logo is different from the one on the historical front page displayed in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de Faux (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That one seems ok to me. Maybe start a discussion at Talk:The Times? --John (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:DJV11181988

[edit]

DJV11181988 (talk · contribs) is at it again, adding information that has been challenged, repeatedly. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. Meantime would you start a discussion at one of the talk pages explaining why the changes are unhelpful? --John (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, but from what I have learned of his interactions he will not participate. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've began a conversation on the Talk:Domino's Pizza page stating the exact reasons why I have reverted the changes, primarily for violations of WP:Lead. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --John (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the moment his block was up he started again, ignoring the MoS and stating his way is the required way to edit an article. Please see Ihop. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked again. We must be headed for an indef next. --John (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did add another message on his talk page as to why what he has been doing is wrong and added an avenue to put the information into the article body if he insists on including it. I also explained some of my reasons why I prefer general facts in some instances opposed to exact information that can become quickly outdated. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail rears its head again, inter alia

[edit]

Kindly note its use in the Cary Grant biography, which appears, to me, to go far beyond proper weight of allegations and rumours, including use of the DM as one source (your very favourite, IIRC) <g>.

I am happy to take a look but I don't think BLP applies on that article. --John (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know he is dead <g>, and the issue seems settled now per RfC. Nonetheless, I feel WP:RS applies with regard to weight given rumours, and Dyan Cannon (alive) is clearly named in that section. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I used an expletive at Talk:Cary_Grant#Higham.2FMoseley_Reviews. Alas - apparently removing material from a discredited book is now considered "damage" and elicited a "fuck off" comment from the person now owning the biography :(. Collect (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will take a look later tonight. --John (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

amazing the type of sources some people use

[edit]

I think you should look at "addictinginfo.org" which it appears some persons consider a "reliable source" of some sort. It makes the Daily Mail look like the KJV. <g> Collect (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. Is this in relation to a particular article? --John (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have to do a perfunctory search per certain factors present in its usage, alas. Again, thank you. Collect (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote farm

[edit]

Hi John, I know you have had the joys of discussing excessive quotes with the user Light show before (Robin Williams, Einstein and Kubrick are the ones that stick in my mind). I was looking over Irving Berlin and noticed the ridiculous length and frequency of quotes used, and I'll give you one guess on the primary editor there. I tagged, but was reverted and was accused of acting in bad faith as a result. If you'd like to chip in at the talk page your comments would be welcome, but no problems if you'd rather not get dragged into another quotefarm conversation with LS. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is that I agree with you. I will comment at article talk. --John (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Description

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi John, Regarding that recent block, it's done now and we can't go back. But in all fairness to myself there was never any intent to plagiarize within the generally understood meaning of the word, which normally implies dishonesty by virtue of trying to claim credit for somebody else's work. When you first initiated the block did you think that I had simply copied and pasted from the source? I certainly didn't do that. I was carefully working my way through a printed book selecting sentences as were relevant to make a summary of the chronology of events. I do know now that it's contrary to Wikipedia policy to use complete verbatim sentences from a source, and it won't happen again. But meanwhile I think it's only fair that you re-word the reasons for the unblock to something more neutral. It's up to yourself, but it would be more true to write something along the lines of "misunderstanding of no original research rule". I was only trying to avoid the accusation of having made my own interpretation of the sentences, and I knew that fifty years had passed since the death of the author. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you now appreciate that we cannot copy and paste verbatim extracts from a source into articles without attributing the source or identifying it as a quotation from a source, as you did here. This is precisely square in the centre of anybody's definition of plagiarism. It is lazy and dishonest, and would cause you to fail at secondary school level if you submitted this for a school project. It is indeed, as you put it, "dishonesty by virtue of trying to claim credit for somebody else's work". I should perhaps have warned you before blocking you, if you really did not think there would be a problem with this edit, although it calls your honesty and competence as an editor into question. I was influenced in blocking you by the fact that you had recently been blocked for related misbehaviour in a related area. I will issue you with a one-second block making clear that you were blocked for "misunderstanding of the nature of plagiarism", and not copyright breach. It is likely that the text of History of England from the Accession of James II by Thomas Babington Macaulay, published between 1848 and 1861, would qualify as public domain for our purposes, so I was mistaken to mark your block as one made for copyright violation; the block reason should have been plagiarism and disruptive editing. Having said all that, I remain concerned at the overall tenor of your editing, and would counsel you to be very careful that your strong POV about matters of Irish history and vexillology does not lead you into further difficulties. I note your comments here and would consider this as evidence of an ongoing problem with your attitude to Wikipedia. Would you consider avoiding these areas for a while until you learn the ropes a wee bit? I think having someone new getting the hang of our protocols and procedures in an area where you have a strong point of view which is under Arbcom sanctions may cause further friction and disruption if you so continue. --John (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN discussion

[edit]

You might like to review this AN report. I am letting you know because there was an attempt to ping you which I suspect did not work. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

[edit]

FYI - There is currently an RFC on that article's talk page about whether or not the Victims' section should remain in the article. Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with a specific edit.

[edit]

Personally, I believe the information you removed in this diff is relevant and shouldn't be trimmed because both Tony Awards and Hamilton are mentioned. What do you think? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree with you as I removed this. There is a tendency for heavily-edited articles like this one to become so encrusted in fluff and cruft that it becomes difficult to see the actual subject. This one is about a guy going crazy and killing loads of people at a club. Do we want/need a factoid about a theatre show removing muskets from their depiction? I vote strongly meh on this one. --John (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understandably. Was more asking for the reason behind your removal; I'm personally also a bit meh on it, but figured it went with what was already in the article (as it was a performance at the awards). No worries. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 19:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I totally see your point. I will not specifically remove that sentence if it is added again, but I will probably continue to look in from time to time and trim the bloat as it builds up. --John (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent archiving

[edit]
I've answered the questions about the edit; continuing to discuss the best way forward at User talk:DrChrissy.--John (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. You recently archived a posting of mine in which I thanked other editors for their support during a rather acrimonious thread. I am not disputing your right to do that as an admin, but I genuinely do not understand your motivations. Is it wrong for me to make such a posting? DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When threads are archived you do not add to them. --John (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, DrChrissy added the note outside the archived box which was then extended by another user, just fyi. EdChem (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed both. --John (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the box was extended by another user, not that there was a follow up comment. EdChem (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I see what you mean. Oh well. I still stand by the principle of not adding to archived discussions. Especially in the context. --John (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, I do not wish to appear argumentative, but I did not add to an archived discussion. The thread had been closed in a box which states "do not modify this closed discussion". I did not modify it. It had not been archived. I simply added a message of thanks outside the box. This was a courtesy message to all those who had taken the time to post messages in support. DrChrissy (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before we get entangled in terminology, my understanding is that when a thread is boxed it is "closed" until it is moved to the archive pages when it is considered to be "archived". DrChrissy (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Want to comment on the facts only. Both DrChrissy and I made further comment on that thread after it had been hatted and closed. An editor then extended the hat to include both our comments. at that point our comments appeared as if they had both been made after the hat and close, but inside the hat. I believe this entirely supports what DrChrissy has stated above. Thx. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of the person adding a small note underneath an archived section, their action is good and has a benefit in that they letting others know what they think. However, what about all the other participants who may have differing views? Should they add their summation? There can be no firm rule about these details, but it is very reasonable for an uninvolved admin to think it would be better to draw a line at the close of the section to avoid it rekindling, and in fairness to others. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the procedural issue, I have acknowledged upthread that you are right. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I stand by my judgement that this discussion had run its course and that adding to it was a mistake. User:DrChrissy, I was disappointed that you immediately disregarded my friendly advice to stay away from the area of conflict. --John (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In which respect John? The posting after the close or my posting here? DrChrissy (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The former, as I've laid out on your talk page. Let's continue that conversation there; it's too confusing otherwise. --John (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seriously?

[edit]

As a sysop, you should know better than to engage in an edit war. Please go re-read WP:PRIMARY ("Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.") and restore the data. Thank you. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't. You might read WP:ONUS if you're struggling to see why we can't use a "tweet" to support material on an article. --John (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not disputing the content, you're disputing the source, which is clearly allowed under PRIMARY. This is profoundly disappointing ... 🖖ATS / Talk 21:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for getting a better source. Not much better, but just good enough. Don't you feel there are now too many quotes there though? --John (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So was the tweet per PRIMARY and SELFSOURCE, but I've a feeling your sword has felled that horse. As for too many quotes, no; the section quite intentionally sticks to the most pertinent—and is why, for instance, Justin Beiber is not there—and is exactly what I would expect to see several years from now—which, to me, is the benchmark. 🖖ATS / Talk 00:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

[edit]
I think this discussion has run its course, for now. Let's quit while we're ahead. --John (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see you've been trimming a lot of articles I've worked on populating. Good job and sincere thanks. :) You have made me more aware of some slightly meandering sentence structure/linking I use a little too often. Thanks a lot and regards. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I believe the usage of the words "however" and "nonetheless" could be reduced from my formatting.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kieronoldham, for the generous feedback. Words like those seldom add anything. Where it is possible to use shorter words and sentences without changing the meaning, we should do so. I look forward to working with you in the future; I do occasionally write articles myself, but my big strength is in improving the work of others. --John (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So John, the word Nazi now, already? The words "however" and "nonetheless" are perfectly useful and necessary words in the right place!! We do occasionally want to join sentences together in that particular way, don't we? Especially if we are blessed with a "really big strength", surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These words have their place of course, and I use them myself. It's my opinion that they are almost never an asset to an article, however. WP:EDITORIAL is the relevant guideline. Can you think of any of the recent changes Kieronoldham is thanking me for that left an article poorer? You can add "additionally" (instead of "and"), "moreover" and "notably" to the list. --John (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like "however" or "nonetheless" and moreover, quite notably I think, I like additionally. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like all words. My current word of the week is moiety. But as I said, less is more and articles read a lot better when we can remove or replace say 10% of the words and leave the meaning intact. --John ([[User talk:John#--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)top|talk]]) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kieron, your big strength must be coping with this severe advice. I'm sure all of your improvements are indeed just fine! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC) ...and John, you know how to take my advice. [reply]
Oh of course, I really appreciate your humour and your spirit. I thought that bluelink would be more useful than it was. I meant that a good article, in architectural terms, should be more like the clean and minimalist Barcelona Pavilion, and less like the Gothic Reims Cathedral, much as I like Reims Cathedral. An awful lot of my work down the years has consisted of chipping away other people's gargoyles to allow the smooth walls of meaning underneath to be visible. I like it. --John (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, err. I've come over all intellectually comparative. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like staying out of arguments, John. We all use our strengths on Wikipedia. Maybe you can come across as abrupt to some editors in edits? But in having said that, I may come across as abrupt myself when I decide to expand or adjust articles? Martinevans123, I agree with you there's nothing wrong with the words I mentioned - I was just surprised at the number of instances I saw in the selective revision differences. If it had been, say, half a dozen per article adjusted I'd have seen it as maybe being pedantic. Maybe in time I or someone else will reinsert one or two if I, he or she think there are too many semicolons for example and what may be seemed a more sublime congealing of structure. It is my tailored style of writing (and I've seen compromises from John with me, too). If you want to reinsert a few sections of text where you feel appropriate, be my guest "Additionally" is, in many instances,to me, more encyclopedic than "and" in the context of trial evidence presentation or the compilation of structuring factors in a manhunt etc. "Notably" would - to my mind should - be better used than removed from an article in instances where for example, particular emphasis in a piece of crucial evidence which overshadows or will overshadow circumstantial evidence to be presented at trial? All our intentions are for the better, but, consensus governs. Regards to you both. --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. John I'm game for a prose list on there if that will satisfy you (Birmingham Pub Bombings). Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to be civil with you, John (Or User This is Paul?). You have no conclusive, definitive policy to support removal - otherwise I'd abide (as I said on the Teahouse discussion last year). I'll add more references if you wish, but here's a good compromise: IF you can find a reputable, concise list - add it to the External Links, then feel free to remove it. Perhaps I should add User Bastun's enticement of removing the Bloody Sunday casualty list 1st, but I won't.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:This is Paul? --John (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kieronoldham, you need to respond to this. If you are accusing me of sockpuppetry, you need to open a report at WP:SPI. If you are not, you need to withdraw this. Please decide which way you want to go. The decision could have quite serious consequences, so I suggest thinking carefully about it. --John (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And George and Ringo are going to feel a bit left out. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

We did write so many great songs back in the day, but I still think my name should appear first on the credits...Seriously though...sock puppetry...is this guy having a laugh or what? This is Paul (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think John is. But I have to admit, I am. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC) (I see that Kieron has now thought better of that slip and seems to be editing in good faith). I sure am. Lol--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. User:Kieronoldham, good Wikiquette dictates using strikethrough rather than deleting your comment as you did here. Would you mind doing that for me? Also, what did you mean by your edit summary No accusation; just you seem to both hover over the same political pages? Which political pages would that be? --John (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. We're both providing good entertainment for MartinEvans123 here. Seriously though, I know the procedure for sock puppetry and had I been serious it'd have been reported without notification. You and the user I mentioned both give very similar explanations for your edits, and you've both contributed to articles like the Killing of Jo Cox, Jo Cox, and articles like the 2016 U.K. Referendum articles/withdrawal from the E.U. I was trying to use humour to placate frustration. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Kez. Well, thank you for explaining that it was a joke to accuse me of sockpuppetry. I'm not actually all that frustrated, as I have 180,959 edits to 85,189 pages over my 10 years here, and I am not all that conscious of "hanging about" any particular area. I am also not all that invested in the Birmingham bombing article; I'd just rather it wasn't filled with crap. It isn't a very good article, and it perhaps should be. But it's no big deal to me. Is it to you? I am sure Martin finds the whole thing hilarious, as you say. --John (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been active on here for around eight years, and over the years, I've seen your contributions regularly on articles of various natures. I think that article is actually well-referenced and informative, but am aware of potential personal bias there, as I've largely populated it to the level it's currently at. Like I said before, we all use our strengths. Have a good weekend. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beware, Kez, I often try and use "humour to placate frustration" and I often have to suffer the backlash from some humourless and borish policy-wonk (no offense intended John). I once accused an editor of sockpuppetry and he found it about as funny as a red hot poker up the arse. I'm glad to see that John is more reasonable. I hope you two can now truly bury the hatchet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Over my dead body. We'll just havesee how things go, though. "However", "nonetheless", "formally", this editor is at a stalemate. Have a good weekend, too, Martin.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[15]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice video. One of his finest works, though I prefer "How Do You Sleep?" --John (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

[edit]

Hi there.

I have nominated Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi to be one of the 10,000 Vital Topics on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Scientists.2C_inventors_and_mathematicians

The list currently contains names of 20+ mathematicians but not Khwarizmi!

Please support if you find it justified. - Arman (Talk) 09:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your tutorship! Iurii Komogorov (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

done with Higham

[edit]

When I get accused of making changes I did not even make at all - I fear that even though I told the other that I am now "200% shamed" that he is "hell-bent for leather" (sigh). Might you examine the Higham article for me doing anything other than using strong sources, and removing unsourced claims? Merci. It is easier dealing with the Daily Mail at this point. Collect (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be pleased to take a look over the next 24 hours or so. I think it is a good idea to withdraw for a while. --John (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a neutral article I'm Arnold Palmer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal

[edit]

Sorry John, but you know it is not right for User:Collect to claim that he brought Cary Grant to GA status. It's wrong and a clear lie. 15 edits, all negative ones, and he did his best to get it delisted and hamper progress. If you can't at least stand up here and confront Collect over this and kindly ask him to take it down then you're clearly not acting in a neutral fashion here and acting as if you're his protector. Frankly I have no idea why the likes of you and Eric respect Collect, to me he comes across as a bumbling idiot who produces no content and hangs about the site like a bad smell moaning about sources. I see no redeeming qualities in him whatsoever, what am I missing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

officially "shamed" too damn much

[edit]

See [16] where an editor now wishes to ignore the fact that editors who forget that "good articles" must be properly sourced, and removal of bad material is fully as important as adding masses of material. [17] I am getting effing tired of this all. I checked actual sources if you note how I work User_talk:Dr._Blofeld#Ellis_Island.3F_Not_for_Second_Cabin_passengers_unless_they_failed_an_on-board_medical_inspection showing that I actually check claims which end up being false on their face, and tend not to love edits which ignore clear copyright violations vide User_talk:Dr._Blofeld#lead.3F_b_Montgomery_Clift.

Might you politely ask such editors to quite kindly stop "shaming" me at this point. I emended my userpage to indicate that I was not the one who added bad stuff, that all I seek is to make sure articles are actually "good" and follow MOS and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For that I quite cheerfully would be "shamed" a thousand times over. Being limited to 1RR forever does require telling editors what the problems are, as I have several stalkers who make sure to follow the rules." Having "official shamers" is not precisely what I think is desired per WP:HARASS, alas. Nor do I think "edit countitis" is a desirable trait in improving Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running to the admin buddy again.. I have no desire to "stalk" or "harass" you Collect, believe me I have better things to do. I just strongly suggest you change your approach towards dealing with sourcing and editors who produce good content here and start showing people a bit more respect. You most certainly harassed me over the Cary Grant article and when I was in the middle of writing it all you were doing is trying to get a source blacklisted at the RS noticeboard. I didn't add the claim on Ellis Island, that was there long before I wrote it and would have been removed before GAR. It is pretty vital to mention Montgomery Clift's most notable roles in the lede, so complete removal of text is not always a good thing in cleanup, far better to rewrite in our own words if important... There are some deep flaws in your own editing at times, that Higham aticle in particular. So for all you complain about sources, if articles are not neutral and are poorly sourced it seems a little hypocritical don't you think to act like an authority around here? Who has edit counteritis? I most certainly don't. In fact for a while I refused to be named on the editors by edit count out of embarrassment at having so many edits here. High article edit counts in my case equates to hard work, something which you don't appear to be capable of. Perhaps if your "friends" here were more honest with you about your articles and behaviour at times you'd improve. Can't see that happening as people are afraid to question or challenge you Collect for some reason.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you specifically accuse me of making wording POV when the words were already there in the article before I arrived? Why do you accuse me of having "unreferenced paragraphs" when the paragraphs were already there before I arrived? Why do you (FIRB) post over and over and over about how evil Collect is - when the simple fact is that the job if an "editor" is to "edit."
By the way, Charles Higham had lower standards than the Daily Mail had <g> - he wrote "gossip" for Rupert Murdoch for years. Sydney Morning Herald "Beginning his career in Sydney as a journalist and critic for the Herald under editor John Pringle, and then for Rupert Murdoch's Daily Mirror, he grew a tough skin essential for survival in the environment of Australian journalism in the '50s." and Daily Mail "Flynn biographer Charles Higham claims his research shows the dashing actor's espionage for the Germans led to hundreds dying in concentration camps" (even the DM refused to make it "fact"!) You accuse me of finding only "criticism" - I could add the DM usage of his Flynn gossip, for sure ...
More to the point, alas, are the "shaming war" advanced in edits here, and at [18] et seq, [19] et seq, [20] et seq, [21] et seq, for as much seqs as is needed. I respectfully ask you to stop this misuse of Wikipedia to attack an editor who believes "edit" means "prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it."(Google def) or M-W " to prepare (something written) to be published or used : to make changes, correct mistakes, etc., in (something written)" and note specifically that is precisely what I do. I ask you to desist from this "shaming expedition/quest/crusade" at this juncture. And I assure you that researching claims is just as "hard work" as is posting them without verifying what the sources actually support (recall your belief that Cary Grant went through Ellis Island, and that "Archie" was his "last name" for the MOS concerns?). Collect (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring of an editor you warned

[edit]
Blocked 24 hours. THis is not the place for a detailed discussion of sourcing and copyvios. --John (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John, after this discussion last week you warned the editor in question about edit warring. The continue to use edit warring as a tool to include their changes to the article in question. Today they made some image changes to the article. I made a partial revert, particularly of one image. They put it back in twice, the second time telling me to Stop edit warring. During this time they have not opened a talkpage discussion. They are additionally restoring Copyvios while telling me to use the talkpage.

I am unsure where to go with this editor. I have not opened a talkpage discussion on this latest image dispute, but that is because I did so in an exactly equivalent situation just yesterday, here, where I had an image change reverted and brought it to the talkpage. This editor is happy to warn others not to edit war, and tell them not to revert, all while doing this regularly themselves. They call edits whose POV they disagree with vandalism, and will stifle discussion by declaring them finished when it suits them, while at the same time strongly asserting discussions can be reopened.

I was considering opening a new AN3 report, but given you closed the last one I thought I'd ask your opinion first. Best, CMD (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing content calling it Copyvio but it is not, and removing 1 200+ bytes, I am telling you to prove that they are copyvio because I didn't find them like that. You biased editor and if I try to check you "contribution" and reverts doesn't make me bad editor. I am checking your POV push.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and it is clear I am the only one who tries to defend articles about Georgia from users like you and the only solution for you is to call me editwarer and to achieve my block. I can prove that you are biased.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you are making good edits I even thank you for that and you know that but when you try to change some sensitive materials according your POV and it is not clearly defined, sorry but I won't look at it calmly.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that I am in controversy not everywhere where I edit but about some sensitive topics and not about my contributions but about other users edits who try to distort (or hide) some important materials about Georgia.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easily found copyvio examples:
Source Wikipedia
South Ossetian separatists who committed the first act of escalation when they blew up a Georgian military vehicle on August 1, wounding five Georgian peacekeeping troops South Ossetian separatists committed the first act of violence when they blew up a Georgian military vehicle on 1 August 2008. The explosion wounded five Georgian peacekeepers.
By evening, snipers, presumably Georgian, had killed a half-dozen South Ossetians Georgian snipers assaulted the South Ossetian militiamen during the evening.
Shelling by Ossetian separatists against Georgian villages began as early as August 1, drawing a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers and other fighters already in the region Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers and other troops in the region.
attacks on Georgian villages intensified...By 10:30 P.M. local time on August 7 the Georgians returned fire. During the night, Georgian forces including armored columns began advancing toward Tskhinvali, the secessionist authorities’ administrative center. Ossetian separatists intensified their attacks on Georgian villages located in the South Ossetian conflict zone. Georgian troops returned fire and advanced towards the capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, during the night of 8 August.
The Ossetian separatists were provoking a conflict to give the Russian military a pretext for direct intervention the Ossetians were intentionally provoking the Georgians, so Russia would use the Georgian response as a pretext for premeditated military invasion.
By 10 a.m. on Aug. 8, about 1,500 Georgian ground troops had entered the center of Tskhinvali The centre of Tskhinvali was reached by 1,500 men of the Georgian ground forces by 10:00 on 8 August.
Intervention and occupation under the guise of peacekeeping launched a large-scale invasion of Georgia under the guise of peacekeeping operation
In five days of fighting the Russian forces recaptured the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in air raids deep inside its territory. Russian military captured Tskhinvali in five days and expelled Georgian forces. Russia also launched airstrikes against military infrastructure in Georgia.
With regard to allegations of ethnic cleansing committed by South Ossetian forces or irregular armed groups...against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia both during and after the August 2008 conflict. (live link) Both during and after the war, South Ossetian forces and irregular militia conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Georgians in South Ossetia
Russia has handed control of buffer zones adjacent to Abkhazia and South Ossetia over to an EU monitoring mission in Georgia Russian forces withdrew from the buffer zones adjacent to Abkhazia and South Ossetia on 8 October and control over them was transferred to the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia.
The text is sufficiently different in some areas, but in others it could hardly be closer paraphrased. Further, of the changes that were made, it seems they mainly were to either 1) add dates, which doesn't do much to reduce copyvio, and 2) slant it to make Georgia look good or Russia/South Ossetia look bad (eg. "killed a half-dozen South Ossetians"->"assaulted the South Ossetian militiamen"). CMD (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we can work about those issues together, remember I won't be against those changes that are really according wiki policies but won't leave two meanings. --g. balaxaZe★ 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think it will be good to call admins for help. Since these issues are always sensitive and need more attention. --g. balaxaZe★ 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where texts are different they should remain, but where they can be closer paraphrased you have enough knowledge of the language to do that without any effort instead of removing it. Admit this.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How did you miss those sentences when you checked for Copyvio? As for "Admit this", I made an actual edit to that effect. CMD (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'll remind you have changed (removed) more sentences that these few.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before your edits:
At around 19:00 on 7 August 2008, Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili announced a unilateral ceasefire and no-response order.[77] However, Ossetian separatists intensified their attacks on Georgian villages located in the South Ossetian conflict zone. Georgian troops returned fire and advanced towards the capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali
After your edits:
On 7 August 2008, Georgian forces began shelling the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali; this was followed, on 8 August 2008, by an advance of Georgian Army infantry, tanks, and police commandos into South Ossetia
Do you see differences in meanings of the sections? --g. balaxaZe★ 12:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edits can be compared easy — Before edits ►[22]; after edits ►[23]. There are more changes than copyvio. --g. balaxaZe★ 12:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the differences. Are also concerned about the differences in meaning that the edit adding the copyvio brought about? CMD (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Schools

[edit]

Good afternoon John. I have had a look at your last edits to school articles and I do not agree with the your "nn's" (not needed I assume). Why remove the "Boat Club" bit in the infobox? My best guess is that it is there for a reason!

Furthermore, what explanations do you have for removing referenced and, most importantly relevant sections such as "The Worthian Society". Also, why changing the order of thumbnail images that belong to a section like "Sport" to an irrelevant one like "Music"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreiterAdam45z (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V, WP:PROMO and WP:PRIMARY. --John (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would the Boat Club bit in the infobox work if I added source to it? Concerning the removal of a section that's referenced by a primary source (the Worthian Society website), I still don't agree. There is no reason why it should be "conflict of interest" in any way, as it is quite direct, neutral and objective information, not serving any advertising or subjective purpose. --CreiterAdam45z (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. User:CreiterAdam45z, are you affiliated with any of these schools for which you are advocating? --John (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John I have met a few people who have attended these schools, but no affiliation other than that! I am simply interested in UK independent schools and improving their wiki articles. If you take a look at many other UK private school's articles you will notice several of them also contain information related to societies and so on. Is this supposed to be advertisement, or simple factual information? --CreiterAdam45z (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can only use stuff like clubs if there is good third-party sourcing. Otherwise it looks promotional. --John (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Black

[edit]

Just want to say thanks for some of your edits on this article. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kieronoldham, thanks and same to you. It's coming on. A fascinating and repulsive tale. I was in Edinburgh when the first disappearances occurred and remember the searches well. --John (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your working on the references. Even though I disagree with a very occasional adjustment or redaction you make, largely, what you do on this article is for the better. Personally, I just like populating and referencing the text. I'd love to see this article nominated as GA. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, Could I also add my thanks for your work on this article. Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. P.S. If you ever have time, I'd like to work with you trimming this article as, to my mind, it is one of the most overpopulated articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia (and that is against stiff competition). Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see I've edited that 18 times over 10 years. There are several kinds of trim. One problem on well-edited articles with many sources can be a need for completeness, with all points of view explained in full. This makes for a very turgid article. The other problem, as with the Black article, is one where the coverage is about right but where the prose is long-winded. This is a lot easier to fix. I will certainly take another look. --John (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)...Kieronoldham, you have done a fantastic job with Black. John's talk page kept flashing up on my watchlist so I thought I'd take the trouble to see what all the fuss was about. Well, it was no trouble and it was certainly no fuss. As revolting as the subject matter is, I found this account to be very well told and a pleasure to read. CassiantoTalk 20:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd echo that, User:Cassianto. Kieronoldham has been a pleasure to work with, and should be congratulated on his hard work. --John (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't bad either John ;). Sorry, where's my manners. In relation to "thanks", I just have, on his talk page. CassiantoTalk 20:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
For guiding Kieronoldham through, what must've been, a horrible subject to write. Your tutorship during the construction has been fantastic and the project has benefitted hugely from your guidence and collaboration. CassiantoTalk 20:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's extremely kind of you. --John (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My 1st awarded barnstar

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I've never awarded a barnstar before in eight years (even though I've encountered no shortage of assistance and civility from others), but I just wanted to offer this as my thanks for your tireless efforts improving my previous exhaustive populating on the Robert Black article. I can, maybe, to a degree, hold cards close to my chest as far as contributed text is concerned, as precious few people can delve their mind into subjects like this to the degree I do without becoming psychologically scarred, whereas I can successfully compartmentalise any emotions. Basically, what I mean is, you have shown me to be a little more open as to greater avenues. Thanks, John, and genuine kudos.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is very generous of you. --John (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Cryer yet again

[edit]

You kindly protected the article but the IP is back reinstating trivia. I have removed it several times since the protection expired. As I've been accused of edit warring at Red House Museum while trying to keep the content encyclopedic, I am loathe to keep doing it so please can you help yet again? J3Mrs (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. I hope I don't have to return again. J3Mrs (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

[edit]

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. --John (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contests

[edit]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

I don't agree with the deflagging of international school templates because flags are a very quick and easy way to tell which "country" a school belongs to. People want to quickly navigate the templates and don't take too much time reading them.

That's why "victim lists" have flags, because it's quick and easy navigation. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:ICONDECORATION? If not you may find it interesting. --John (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware there's been multiple debates on when/where flag icons should be used. It would make sense that someone would write WP:ICONDECORATION to try to iron everything out. Thank you for linking it.
Anyway as per WP:ICONDECORATION one of the reasons why I use the flags is to "improve navigation", and in the cases of these infoboxes these schools do represent their country.
WhisperToMe (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

38th (Welsh) Infantry Division

[edit]

Hi John, hope all well with you. Been a while since I asked you to look over a FAC but if you check my quick edit to the lead and the result of an even quicker spotcheck of the main body, which I note in the nomination itself, I think you might agree that the text could use some help before we consider promotion. I'm hoping all it really needs is a light copyedit to iron out some simple errors but if you think it will require more time than you can afford, pls don't hesitate to let me know. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, I took a quick look and I agree with you. --John (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

[edit]

I've been getting edit conflicts for days, can only work at certain times, and am a little cranky (as usual). Anyway, I think I managed to retrieve your edit there, and I'm finished for today. Thanks for the many copyedits. Victoria (tk) 20:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Victoria, and thanks for yours too. --John (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It never ends...

[edit]

Please note I have moved a politically inspired article naming to a more acceptable article title. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_visits_to_the_United_Kingdom_and_Ireland&action=history

Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with that, but it would be wiser in future to discuss moves like this one first. --John (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VirVirtutas socking

[edit]

You blocked them for edit warring [24] but they're back as a sock. [25] I've blocked the sock but left the original account alone as I was involved with them. --NeilN talk to me 21:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've extended the block. --John (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Vinnie

[edit]

You're doing an awesome job on VvG. I really think your name should be on the FAC nom rather than mine. [On re-reading this, I see it could potentially be mistaken for a backhanded way to ask for compliments for myself. Nope! I'm saying it as a plain, honest, straightforward compliment to you.] Cheers  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am really enjoying myself. --John (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
John this is a poor substitute to highlight how impressive your work on Vincent van Gogh has been, but it's more than earned. No amount of gratitude can express the amount and quality of your work there; it's truly been exceptional and a joy to watch. Victoria (tk) 04:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Victoria, that is very generous of you. I have greatly enjoyed working on this article and I would love to work with you again in the future if you have other projects planned. --John (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I might, though to be honest I came out of semi-retirement only for this and every time I go through FAC I promise myself never again. The barnstar was more than deserved, but Ceoil is right to say that it's paltry. That said, at that moment it was something I wanted to do. Anyway, welcome to the team. I'm being a little anal and have started a list on the talk page here, mentioning a few things I've noticed that have been changed (most notably Dr. vs Dr). You've taken care of most of these, and I thought it's a good place to keep together our decisions re style. I.,e I'm aware that I don't always get the dates as they should be, so that's another one. Also, I have a small and messy factory in my sandbox. Feel free to take a look, dip in, or even ignore. I may spend a little time researching some of the issues in Brian's most recent set of comments, and I have just picked up a large biography from the library to re-read the ear episode again, so this week I'll be out reading more than here editing. Victoria (tk) 01:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, though I would say that John's contribs to the article are far beyond c/e. He has been a rock. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Och Ceoil that is too generous of you. You and User:Modernist wrote the thing! All I've done is some wee nips and tucks. Very interesting it's been too. --John (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, John, your guidance on matters of structure and detail have been most useful, Brick of Sense award there. I am most appreciative of pared down prose, though not quite capable of it myself; you did dat dere. I am delighted that you are enjoying working on the article, its been a blast from here too. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been an honour and a pleasure to work with you again. You asked me about this months ago and I knew it would be difficult. We are nearly there I think. Teamwork at its best. Slainthe! --John (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slainte and yes teamwork. I'm not sure where this FAC will end up, but it has certainly reinforced my opinion that there are really great people still here. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved, appreciate all of your help...Modernist (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what this is ?

[edit]

Hello again, John ! Hope the summer has been good so far. It hasn't for me, as my dad "Pappa" left this world Monady, just a bit after midnight. He was 78 and heared not so well and also his eye-sight was affected by AMD. But he was always in good mood, making his silly jokes, he still drove both car and his little motor-boat. He just a became bit tired faster than in younger days. So it came quite suddenly, and I'm having difficulties in handeling my sorrow. My dad ment a lot to me, for almost 52 year he was MY dad. Sorry to bother you about that. But I have a Wikipedia question and this is the reason to why I contact you. Do you know anything about the following account User:Earthscent (always in red), extern link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Earthscent&action=edit&redlink=1 .I mean just a sentence like "To start a page called User:Earthscent, type in the box below." confuses me. Could it even be CIA ? It doesn't quit seem to be a personal/normal account ? "It" has erased a rather long comment about what the legacy of Donald Trump's way stright to the top of the Republican Party over there, will be (even if Hillary wins, it's was about the bought road to the top - to my knowledge has he never held any political seat or office at any level before, not even runned for Mayor or anything similar). My point was about the times to come. And will future Presidential elections in the United states be between for instance Bill Gate and someone like Steve Jobs was ??? I don't think I was out of bonds in general, but the formulation was perhaps too personal. I don't care about the rejection as such. But if possible, am I keen to know more about this mysterious account. Have a pleasant continuation of the summer, hope Scotland will get some sunshine during the weeks to come. Boeing720 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boeing720, first of all my condolences for your tragic loss. I can only imagine what you must be going through. Be strong and it will get better in time. Regarding your Wikipedia question, you might try asking User:Earthscent in the first instance. It may well be that they removed your material because the article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, and your material looked more like general questions about the US system, which would come under WP:NOTFORUM. There are places on the Internet you can discuss stuff like this, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. If that was why they removed it, they should really have told you that. Try not to think badly of others editing here; as you know WP:AGF is important. The person operating that account is not an "it" but a real person like you and me. Once again, my heart goes out to you. --John (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind reply. I'm 52 and will manage, but my dad was very dear to me and 78 isn't that old

given he retired at 60. Anyway the text I wrote was made in totally wrong formate. (and too long) But the basic issue about American politics that might become Presidential candidates by jumping over all normal political steps (like mayor of a city, govenor of a state or becomming a senator or member of the house) and goes directly to the top of a party, and becommes the Presidential candidate of a party just like that, isn't quite described in the article. What it means for the future. But I should not made any suggestions, of cource. I might try asking User:Earthscent about the account - but I haven't been angry. Sooner confused, and not by the removal but the user page. Anyway, big thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

[edit]

Re this edit to the FAC, [26], not sure what I've done there. Did I mistakenly move your post? Or was something removed from the article and then retrieved? Anyway, whatever happened, sorry. I'm finished for now, I think. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All looks tickety-boo to me, no apologies necessary. Thanks for your continued work there. --John (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Tickety-boo" made me laugh! Onwards. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was channelling Group Captain Lionel Mandrake there. Do you know in all my ten years here, a kazillion edits, I don't think I have ever been on this end of the FAC process before, so you and the others are really opening my eyes to what it's like. I think it's all going really well so far, don't you? Brianboulton is a very exacting reviewer which is exactly what the article needs. --John (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link, it was bugging me that I knew it from somewhere but couldn't remember where. Yes, FAC can be hard. I've worked on three vital article bios before this one - the biggest challenge is having the books available and quickly (or not so quickly) finding a single point somewhere in those thousands of pages. Smaller topics are obviously easier. It's essential to get it right on the articles with high page views, but the editors who work the page tend to lose perspective and need someone like Brian to find the snags. Thorough reviews are essential for these pages. Victoria (tk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find the process invigorating, but I have to say, co-noms with you V are always, as now, much easier. I agree its going well, which I put down down to the level of commitment shown by each of the nominators. I've always seen John as a content admin in the Moni/Dianna/Fram/Nikki manner ie a rock of good sense, not easily swayed, someone with consistent, focused priorities, and whose words are always considered, not lightly thrown, and carry weight. Really great to finally collab and co-nom at this level. Ceoil (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very generous of you Ceoil. This has renewed my faith in the collaborative model here, if it needed renewing. --John (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to ask this of you John and Ceoil, but we haven't had a source review yet and I haven't really kept up with all the editing to the refs. Plus I have a very bad case of template-itis, and my eyes aren't great. Would be best if either or both of you took a look through to be certain it's all consistent. From a quick look I think e.g current FN 60 probably needs to be wrapped in a note template, but I haven't the skill for that. Victoria (tk) 17:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly take a look at this some time tonight. --John (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of Brian's points have been met now. Can you scan, and I'll ping him back. After that, I'm going to take a week to have a nervous breakdown in peace and quite. Its been emotional, to say the least! Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking good. --John (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën 2CV

[edit]
This has been resolved in article talk, for now. --John (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Policing up"(??) User_talk:NeilN#Hmm... --NeilN talk to me 19:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New one on me too. Don't worry, I won't break 3RR. We have a horrible cruftfest on a popular car. My efforts to bring it in line with WP:V have been met with horror by two well-meaning editors. See the discussion in talk there. --John (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Won't break 3RR" [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
Are you kidding? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if it had been someone I didn't recognize I probably would have gone to AN3 without a second thought. Might be worth considering a self revert and parsing things out instead of trying to push through a 25k sized edit, especially after a half dozen reverts by multiple editors.
Apologize for the army jargon. Basically police up = pick up after. TimothyJosephWood 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for introducing me to the army jargon. Andy, check the times. I was pretty careful not to break 3RR I think. Even in a blatant case of tag-teaming to restore unverifiable shit, that has been under discussion for a month and a half, I would not intentionally break that. If you are interested in improving the article, the talk page is that-a-way. --John (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I was pretty careful not to break 3RR I think."
I'm sure you were. The problem is that you think this somehow makes it better, when actually it's worse. You're not doing this accidentally, you really think that this is the way to proceed. It isn't. How many editors do you need to tell you this? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a real question? I hear your opinion, and I promise to treat it with all the seriousness it deserves. --John (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." I have blocked in this situation so... --NeilN talk to me 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Block me by all means if you think it necessary, Neil. I am here to improve the encyclopedia, and I make no promises I will not again remove unsourced garbage that has been flagged up for years. --John (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was wanting to convey. All I was trying to say was making a fourth revert a few hours after the 24-hour period might not save you if you're reported to WP:ANEW. That's it, that's all. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested in the article. It's not my subject area. I am somewhat more interested in an admin gaining consensus for major changes instead of riding 3RR like a razor's edge. TimothyJosephWood 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS, this is Randy from Boise, isn't it? I haven't seen this for a while!--John (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I don't particularly care about the article, have never edited it, and claim no expertise. I have had occasion to read WP:EW, and have noted that WP:V and WP:NPOV are not exceptions. Your flippant responses make me question my decision to try to resolve this informally, instead of doing what I would have done with any other editor that popped up on recent changes. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How very interesting, User:Timothyjosephwood. Since you're such an expert in military jargon, I expect you know what "Jog on" means. Do it, please. --John (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any comment at AN3?

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:John reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: ). Do you want to make any comment before this closes? It seems unlikely that any action will be taken, but you should have a chance to give your view. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC) :I think I will pass Ed, but I appreciate your courtesy. DFTT and all that. The whole matter was already resolved when the report was made. In a way it isn't about me but about the OP. --John (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind after all. Thanks again Ed. --John (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is a pretty obvious snipe at me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=736024558&oldid=736022581

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw. I regard your removal of my comment there as slightly problematic. The comment wasn't specifically addressed to you, and refactoring a conversation is usually best left to an uninvolved person. I wouldn't dream of removing any of your extremely rude and inaccurate statements about me recently, even although unlike in this case they were specifically addressed to me by name; they are your misconceptions about me, so they tell us a lot more about you than they do about me. I will let them stand. As regards the comment I made, if you have identified criticism there that you feel applies to you, that is the first step to some sort of self-awareness, so that is good. The comment isn't that important to me, so I will let your deletion stand, even though it is out of process. Wikipedia is about producing a high-quality free encyclopedia, not about indulging your feelings, so you are always liable to be called out if you defend the addition of poorly sourced material to a BLP, or of unsourced partisan material on a car article. That isn't uncivil, and neither is it a personal attack; it is just reminding people of what we are actually here for. Behaviour that works against the encyclopedia, whether it is driven by ignorance of our rules and mission or by lack of intelligence, isn't welcome here. Does this apply to you? I hope it does not, but it might be an "If the cap fits" situation, eh? And don't refactor any more of my comments please. I won't be nearly as understanding the next time. --John (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And your message was incorrect; you should read templates before you post them. It seems you hadn't redacted my comment after all. Ahem. I've struck the last part of my comment there as it seems to have hurt your feelings. Have a nice evening. --John (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of article prose at FAC

[edit]

Hi John. A while back you took on a review of the prose in amphetamine at its FAC nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive2#Comment from John). I think the changes that you proposed in your review and the edits to the article that you made of your own volition made a substantial improvement to the article prose. I was wondering if you have time available for taking on and are willing to do a similar review of the prose in beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid for its FAC nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1). I'd really appreciate it if you did, but I'd understand if you don't feel like doing this at the moment since prose reviews for criterion 1a are pretty time-consuming. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to take a look, but I am busy in real life until Monday. I will try to get to it early next week. --John (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. The nomination still has over a month to go before being archived, so there's no rush. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Austen

[edit]

There have been a large number of repetitive edits coming from a single editor apparently using multiple IP accounts for single purpose opposition and personal attacks/accusations against my account. The large number of IP accounts being used is starting to raise the issue of why an obviously experienced editor is almost going out of their way to avoid signing in in the normal way. I have already posted their Talk page and cannot tell if its time to consider spi given this long term issue. I have listed the multiple accounts being used for these personal attacks/accusation here [32]. Could you glance at this? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I will be happy to take a look at this. --John (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the discussion, I am in agreement with SarahSV that the edits fall within policy. I understand it can be frustrating when others disagree with you, but you would do better to answer the IP's substantive criticisms and ignore the tone, if you can do this. Thanks for raising it with me and let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. --John (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John!

[edit]

An old pest here....I'm puxxled by this: - the template coded by

shows up fine in the article 1420 in Ireland, but

...does not appear to work in the article 1799 in Ireland.

I'm sure the reason is blindingly obvious but I'm missing it...Sarah777 (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it appears it doesn't show up here atall atall :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - figured it out Sarah777 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary, Sarah. It is always a pleasure to see you. How have you been keeping? --John (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine! Hope all well with you Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 06 September 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1250_in_Ireland

Yet again! Am trying to expand this series of lists - can you support the "keep" argument? Sarah777 (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I'm in a box here.....Sarah777 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there per your request. Ah, isn't it symbolic of the many boxes we all inhabit? --John (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to contain me in but a single box is surely a travesty? :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've read your contribution I'm sorry I asked for it, tbh. I sometimes forget how constricting the box can be... Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry then. What would your preferred outcome be? --John (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the "articles" alone and let them be expanded. All it needs is one committed editor. I offer myself! Sarah777 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also I note that you say the "blanks" in the series are slow to fill in...but I've come across numerous "articles" removed before they could be expanded. Sarah777 (talk)
All right, you've convinced me. I changed my !vote. Good luck. --John (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you John. While I doubt you are an acrobat, and you may be a scholar - I've no doubt you are a gentleman! Sarah777 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, it is a pleasure to be able to help you. --John (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absence

[edit]

Sorry for not being being around for a bit, but I see ye have things to hand at the FAC. I haven't yet looked into the pronunciation issue, but to say thanks for holding the fort. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Ceoil. I think it is all moving along satisfactorily. The pronunciation isn't all that big a deal, but it's an interesting topic and as long as it is mentioned in the lead, albeit linked to a footnote, I think our readers deserve a better source. I am sure one can be found. --John (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes its better to let objections stand, in this case its one amongst few, which is allowed; grand. And frankly there his history to consider. I'm more worried about teasing out Johnbod's openion.. Ceoil (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The first thing to say is: recent trends on Wikipedia are making me less certain what to do about style questions, including at TFA. There's a chance that I need to stop doing one or more things that I currently tend to do automatically; I'm still turning this over in my head. Having said that, let's start here: do we agree that "about 500 nautical miles" and "500 nautical miles" have different connotations for at least some readers? Do we agree on the dictionary definitions for the word "some"? - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some means about in this context. I do not think it ever adds anything in a context like this and it is one of those I would remove on sight. Especially with a number with two trailing zeroes like 500, it should be obvious that an approximate measurement is intended. Otherwise we would say "precisely 500 nautical miles". What do you think? --John (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know where my head is, prose questions in general are stressing me at the moment ... that is, i have a growing awareness that when I lay out all my goals, and I factor in current on-wiki conflicts, there are inconsistencies; I can't say everything I want to say. I can't even say everything I'm expected to say. Something has to give, and I have to keep ruminating on this. How offended are you by "some 500 nautical miles"? Can we leave it alone until I can figure things out? - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know the feeling. I don't always agree with you but you are someone who I know understands the nuanced questions of language use which have become my main interest here. Let it stand for now; it does not "offend" me in the least, but I think it is something we do not in general need to state. Always a pleasure to talk to you about language. --John (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the fog is clearing. I need to do some hard thinking and ask some hard questions, but it won't be long before I can come back here and give you some answers. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on Vincent!

[edit]
Vase with Honesty, Nuenen, Autumn 1884

It was a long haul, but you prevailed!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for your great help as well. --John (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what I did was reverted/altered by later editors ( I disagreed, but didn't want to argue about it during FAC, so I let it go), so my contributions net out to near nil. You and others did the genuine heavy lifting. You are the man. Cheers--  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't it you who pushed through templated references? I am more comfortable thinking of it as a joint effort, because actually I don't think I did all that much. I am delighted that we made it and honoured to have been part of such a team. --John (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your honesty is appreciated, John. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VvG

[edit]
The Barnstar of High Culture
To John, for all your efforts in bringing Vincent van Gogh‎ to where it is. Thank you for your hard work. Modernist (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you. You did all the real work there; all I did was some tidying. Thank you for being gracious enough to award me this. --John (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar of Fine Art
For being the main copy editor and chief prose smith, and for acting as part of the nominator team in working Vincent van Gogh through FAC, and for your endless common good sense. A pleasure; the Vincent article would not have passed without your heavy input and guidance. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Ceoil. It was a pleasure. What next? --John (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I have a copy-editors ear, this 13th Crucifix is the immediate project but needs work (mostly rewording); in terms of a collab, a hatchet job on Cut the Crap seems like fun, especially as, as I've said, I rather like it. But the inner band turmoil and wanton mismanagement is fascinating. There is a great story; I'd like to go for it. Ceoil (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Let me start looking at my sources. --John (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

...for VvG. Lovely work, and the star is well earned. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very great pleasure. Great team, great reviewers, and an interesting subject. --John (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
For your wonderful work on Vincent van Gogh. And for being part of what is now known as Wikipedia's Dream Team. A hearty congratulations. CassiantoTalk 17:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is extremely kind. --John (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enid Blyton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hachette. 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) 09:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DPL bot, I've fixed that. --John (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative error

[edit]

Dear John

Could you delete 1236 in Ireland in a manner that won't prevent its recreation? The entire should have been 1238 in Ireland. Now we have a bit of a time-warp. I just know you can fix this! ;) Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. --John (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should award you somestar but your collection is so humongous I'd hate to be the straw....Sarah777 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. Since you mention it, I have always secretly hankered after getting The Home-Made Barnstar, as I designed it and have awarded it many times, but have never received it. Maybe next time? --John (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee is considering your..eh...hint! Sarah777 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Award for Exceptional Patience

[edit]

It took the Committee a while to find it but we felt you deserve it for 10 years of services rendered and indeed for almost single handedly keeping said Committee on Wikipedia in some troubling times. To appreciate its full beauty the conventional 100px rendering does not suffice - so we've made it bigger (though we won't be upset if you choose to shrink it a bit!). Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thanks Sarah, that is very kind of you. Time flies, eh? I've no regrets about spending so much of my life on here, it's been great. I've learned a lot and got to meet so many interesting people, yourself included. All the best and here's to another 10 years! --John (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Hmmm...... Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably too "popstar" for you John, but have you seen David Bowie's amazing [33] video...seems your home-made Barnstar is from the same bundle of scarecrows....Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an amazing video, thanks for sending it. And I do see the resemblance to the barnstar. I was sorry to see Bowie go; I was a punk and there was no punk without Bowie. --John (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding congratulations and thanks for service. Bowie, Iggy or Lou. A holy pre-punk trinity. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

[edit]

Hello, John. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Iron Lady

[edit]

Hello John. I had this Thatcher-related article nominated at Afd over a week ago that you may be interested in commenting on. If deletion does go through, with Iron Lady instead redirecting to Margaret Thatcher, I suggested a merge of some of the article's contents into a new section entitled "Nicknames" (based on Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington#Nicknames, with "The Iron Lady" underneath as a subsection). Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 22:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As you can imagine, we have had to fight pretty hard to keep this from becoming a collection of trivia. Let me think about that. --John (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'ce' stand for?

[edit]

--Darth Tacker (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit. --John (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Your edits at Margaret Thatcher continue to be very much appreciated. Many thanks, and all the best of luck in future. --Nevé–selbert 23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is very kind. --John (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... target practice?

[edit]

"Stop shootin', I'm eatin' ma beans". I see Gavin says "Tomorrow" on his Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that. I would be very sorry to see User:SchroCat retire, especially as I believe User:Cassianto has recently taken a similar measure. These are two of our best writers and editors. On the other hand, once every year or two I try to take a month off. This place can be intense. So I hope in both these cases that this is in the way of a break, not a permanent departure. --John (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I enjoyed my partially-self-induced month off. And I even emailed Mike V to partially thank him. But Gavin seems to have always taken the project much more seriously than I ever could. He exhibits an integrity that I could never aspire to. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC) ... ye-ha![reply]

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

[edit]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

John and Eric, you guys nominated this one, would you like to do the TFA? Keep it between 1000 and 1200 characters, please. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. --John (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How's that looking now, User:Dank? User:Eric Corbett? I think it is almost there. --John (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to care about TFAs I'm afraid. Eric Corbett 22:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that Eric. You did all the heavy lifting on this one, I recall, and it would be good to think it was well-represented on the main page. But it ain't no hill of beans. I feel much more pride for Maggie's meagre GA status where I did more of the work. Had you noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Lady? Depending how wiki-jaded you feel, you might be interested in that one. --John (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, Eric, I'll stop notifying you about them, but feel free to participate any time. "submariners from the U-852": nice, John, I'll add that to my list of compact TFA expressions. "the worst judge since the war": nicely handled, without undue emphasis. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for him, John and Eric! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back again

[edit]

Hi, You semi-protected Ann Cryer (thank you) but it seems as if the slow edit warrior has accumulated enough edits to add the trivia again. I can keep removing it but will I be blocked? J3Mrs (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being right and editing according to consensus are not good defences against edit-warring. I suggest continuing discussion in article talk. Last time I looked there was no consensus to include this material. Let me know how it goes. --John (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
J3Mrs is quite right, John. Just because keighleynews.co.uk reports on an error in Wikipedia, which Ms Cryer decides to complain about, it really doesn't make the ridiculous hoax, or her complaint about it, a notable fact. And I mean - as if Wikipedia articles ever included totally wrong and incredible information about someobody!! Whatever next. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at article talk seems to be that the factoid is trivial in Cryer's story. WP:SELFREF may be relevant here. --John (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John, the consensus is still there despite an attempt to blank it. If it's reverted again I'll use your link. J3Mrs (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still interested?

[edit]

Hi John. I know you've been busy, so I feel bad about bothering you about this again, but are you still interested in reviewing the HMB nomination at FAC? There's only 9 days left before the nomination hits the 2 month mark, at which time the nomination will probably be closed. If you are still interested but don't expect to have the time to finish a review during this nomination, just let me know; I'll ask the coordinators to close+archive the nomination early (i.e., today or tomorrow) so that we can proceed with our discussion when I renominate it 2 weeks later. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the patience you have shown Seppi333. I am still interested but I think it will be difficult for me to finish a review in the next few days. It is a complex case, and I have thought about it a lot, but I am still struggling to put together a proper response (which your fine work deserves). Sorry. --John (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Elswick

[edit]

Justin is categorised as an "Alumni of Trinity College, Dublin" (can't paste a link without categorising your talk-page likewise!). But he is re-directed to Sleepthief, which isn't so categorised.

Do re-directs drop the categorisation? If so, isn't that a major flaw? Either this guy was a Trinity boy or he wasn't! Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are weird, aren't they? No, as far as I know this is ok. --John (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to the African Destubathon

[edit]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing, whether it's a river in Malawi, a Nigerian footballer, or a South African civil rights activist, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. For those of you who signed up to the North African contest, that will hopefully be held in the new year. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sting

[edit]

Just to let you know, now the page Sting has been unprotected, the vandal who likes to change the sales figure in the lead has returned. Rodericksilly (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question???????

[edit]

Please see Kinnitty. Note the open (RC Church related) template at the bottom - how does one make such a template default=closed? Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have done that. It was interesting. I have always wondered how this was done, and now I know. --John (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Four years ago ...
gnome
... you were recipient
no. 279 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is good to know I am appreciated! --John (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are, much more than the standard offer can show. The very selected few who opposed the main stream back then have a special place in my heart! - I am not appreciated by some, but can do nothing about it. I drove away some precious FA writers, allegedly. No evidence, but who needs evidence. Have been called a monster a year ago, and took it with humour, - the only help, pictured (and you may like some others as well) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you are troubled and I hope that if there is anything I can do you will not feel shy to ask me. If I was to quibble ungraciously with your generous praise, it would be to point out that some of my contributions occasionally rise above gnome-level, though I do still act as a gnome, maybe even most of the time. --John (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) ... whadayalike, you two. Get a room already! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you, you Celtic knave! Gerda and I were just chatting. --John (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do our best. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I am sorry, John, that I didn't notice your FA writing back then (but noticed a bit higher up!), - also I remember I was severely distressed by the efficient scuttling of Br'er. - Hope we will never reach the point of wanting that for ourselves, but IF: just creating a few socks that distribute unpleasantries to "important" people will do the trick within minutes, even if Eric, you and I (and selected few more) oppose ;) - Back to gnoming, - the gnome is the only top icon I will ever carry, in honour of a friend who was driven away by enough people sure he was not honest and was another user. The things we do to each other ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My FA work is sporadic at best, as is my admin work. I do what I can but increasingly I find my time is not my own. Editing here is stressful and the best editors take a break now and again to recharge. I am very concerned about Eric's prolonged absence; his is a far greater absence from the site than mine would be. --John (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same. The editors who now took off as a group and with repeated announcements are SchroCat, Cassianto, Tim Riley and We hope. SchroCat was kind enough to remove a post saying that I alone are responsible for this great loss, - good news. Tim wasn't as much of a gentleman this time, - and I really don't know what happened. I just know that I can be blamed for every evil related to infoboxes. - Yes, I kept a record of articles where one was reverted (article name and date when inserted): read how that is victimizing editors and breeding article targeting (only that when we looked at the articles "targeted" in summer - always happens during vacation time, you can rely on it - they were mostly not on that list). It was considered so dangereous that it was deleted, and I don't care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) John is a great editor, a good admin who helps me get rid of The Sun as a source for BLPs, and he talks a lot of sense. (COI alert : he did give me an admin barnstar recently so I may be biased). Gerda, not giving a <insert favourite word here> is a good attitude to have; at least three people have flat out said I should be desysopped but I just squirrel away on articles. The officially very nice Karla bought me Marcus Scriven's book which will help me get John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol though FAC (it's been sitting at GAN for a month, so no rush or anything) and improve Angus Montagu, 12th Duke of Manchester (his son hates Wikipedia and has been known to rant about it, though he has appeared in normally reliable sources like The Times and The Guardian, but I digress....). Anyway, bury your head in article work and illegitimi non carborundum. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think "hate" is putting it mildly; I'm about the only editor Alex didn't want summarily hanged, drawn and quartered. We've spoken a bit, and he's certainly a "very interesting" chap. I would be very wary of recreating his bio, Ritchie -- although he has got rather bigger fish to fry right now, you would no doubt be high on his shitlist. Don't forget, this is the man who, accused of shooting his wife with a speargun, told the Telegraph: “This is a lie. If that took place, why am I not in jail? And why would I not just shoot her with my Walther P5? I never, ever miss!” --Hillbillyholiday talk 16:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no matching reply ;) - Content: I returned yesterday after weeks of practical absence (a happy family event kept me away, and a persistent cough that is not over), wrote an article yesterday, another today, reviewed a FAC yesterday, another today, found sources for a DYK nom, reviewed another, updated the TFA list, - content enough, Ritchie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, Hillbilly, Ritchie and Martin, thank you for being my friends on here. It is great to know you all. --John (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for staying tuned, John. Let's hope you soon get another gong. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
ps: I also - see what's more rewarding than content - restored sex cats to two user pages today and received thanks ;) - John, thanks for your unshaken trust! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... "restored sex cats" are just the best sort, aren't they, boyo? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

FAC

[edit]

Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I may take a look. --John (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent van Gogh

[edit]

We can expect this from time to time from Coat/Rinochape, sock pupping is easy and although he is very aggressive, we go back. I dont condone the bullying however; its a tangled web I thought I could manage, but I'm sorry he has compromised the page and attacked a close friend of mine like this. Its best to meet his points, one by one, and hope he looses interest. I say this with regret. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad story all right. --John (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In happier news, I have huge admiration for what you and Eric have done with the Thatcher article. A highly complex woman, and one I am very conflicted about (I admired her stance against the unions and she dragged the Tory's towards Europe, but well remember the hunger strikes). You both have built a highly admirable article - nuanced, detached, balanced. You wont hear this from Irishmen every day, but well done. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Margaret Thatcher ranks alongside VvG of things I am proud to have had a hand in here. I remain hopeful that Eric will come back refreshed after his rest. --John (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your not the only one. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Tracey Curtis-Taylor

[edit]

Hey John, fair play for trying to sort out this article. Looks like we've a real dogfight on our hands. After talking to some of the people involved, I thought it best to step aside, but kinda regret not nominating it for AfD when I had the chance. The original "solo" flight which earnt her the dubious distinction of a WP entry has been shown to be non-notable, so her "notoriety" now seems to rest on the stripping of her LAA award. I think one could argue this is a BLP1E situation, do you think the article stands a chance of being deleted still? --Hillbillyholiday talk 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that angle. Good point, let me think about it. --John (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think poor Billy means this sort. But, as articles go, it's a bit of a mongrel, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was quite intentional! "Dog fighting is a type of blood sport generally defined as opposing two game dogs against one another in a ring or a pit for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters, who are sometimes referred to as dogmen." --Hillbillyholiday talk 19:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC) (Chocks Away!)[reply]
It is, but I am not confident the community would agree to put it out of its misery. --John (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, but it's worth a pop. --Hillbillyholiday talk 21:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, my mistake, that sort. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC) [34] [reply]
I've just closed the AfD as "no consensus" but thought I might just mention that I thought both of you (ie: John and Hillbillyholiday) made good arguments for delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing and for saying so. This was the outcome I would have predicted for the article. Good close; not the one I would have wanted but I had a feeling it would turn out this way. --John (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Gothic Heavy Italic

[edit]

Just curious over that recent "ce" of yours, John. Did you think that claim was a) untrue; b) uninteresting; c) misplaced; d) a grammatical mistake; e) all of the above? That sort of factoid (if supported, of course) is some folks' bread and butter! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly (b) and (c) plus that it was unreferenced. Not everything which is (probably) true needs to be on Wikipedia. See my recent editing history at Citroën 2CV for a truly Sisyphean task in a similar vein. --John (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, anyone would think we still used movable type. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I wouldn't have known about the glaring problem there without your edit, thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. I remain unhappy with "Some are toxic in large amounts or certain forms (silver and indium); others, like cadmium, mercury, and lead, are notably toxic." The repetition of "toxic" looks awkward to me. What would be better, "...highly poisonous", "...very poisonous"? Let me think some more. --John (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and lead, are "...highly poisonous". - Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN

[edit]

I removed the piping as it wasn't necessary for many of the links being piped. For example, Lord Liverpool and Lord Palmerston are both redirects to the prime minister's article. I kept the piping for e.g. Nicholas Ridley, Baron Ridley of Liddesdale since Nicholas Ridley is a dab page. There was no need to revert.--Nevé–selbert 22:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of NOTBROKEN. I nevertheless prefer to aim direct to the article I am linking to. Which is why I reverted you. Stuff like this is better discussed in article talk. --John (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ike

[edit]

Please don't let me let you down. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll get to it. Sorry about the delay. --John (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Reviewer Barnstar
For your inestimable assistance in promoting this article to featured status, with my thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very generous. --John (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

[edit]

Have begun a Vincent TFA blurb here. Would appreciate if you could give a look, it needs trimming yet. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll have a look. --John (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

[edit]
I had already seen the discussion, and you can consider me to be aware of it. --John (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see this talk page section. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you canvassing? Really, someone fresh off a topic ban should not be jumping right back into controversial articles and stirring up WP:BATTLEGROUNDs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to follow me around and be disruptive? This editor restored the material in question to the lead, so I am referring him to a discussion about it. Give me a break.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on your edit history and saw that you were going around canvassing editors. Here you're basically asking another editor to edit war on your behalf. Because you yourself are subject to restrictions and because you are fresh off of a topic ban, you are in fact canvassing. And I like your logic there - pointing out that someone is behaving in a disruptive manner is "disruptive". If I do bad things then the people who point out I'm doing bad things are the really bad ones. Right. Not surprised really though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go harass someone else, VM. What I did is no different from pinging two editors who made opposing edits to a sentence of article text.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

[edit]

Hi John.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, John. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-scientist

[edit]

Is that like "non-politician"? Come on, now... Doc talk 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er no, it means "someone who is not a scientist". The source is quite happy to use it, and here it is on Wiktionary. --John (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly am I supposed to comment? I don't get hauled to AE too often. When I say I know I'll be punished for "it", by "it" I mean my stance on Trump. Everybody hates Trump, and it is extremely unpopular to not hate him. I get it. If I broke any rules, which I don't think I did, it would be a civility issue with VM. It's absurd to claim I should be banned for life from all Trump articles. But, as I said in my apparently cryptic and highly disingenuous statement: I expect to be. Doc talk 12:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Doc9871: you're actually supposed to comment in your own section, with a new line and a ping of John (or Casliber, as the case may be). When it's just a matter of a short response, like yours, that's a pretty stiff and reader-unfriendly rule IMO, but you may find some stickler moving your post. I would suppose the ban on threaded discussion on that page came about because sometimes long threads of back-and-forth developed underneath somebody's original comment, which was thereby unfortunately swamped, and also the most long-winded participants appeared all over the page, making it unreadable. Conclusion: I don't think it matters that your posts are where they are, for my part. Move them if you like, or not, and maybe revisit if a long thread does develop. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks, Bishonen, for the procedural note. That's as I thought. As you say, it's no big deal. User:Doc9871, Wikipedia needs partisans, but it is extremely hard for a partisan editor to edit productively in the area of their partisanship. I am not a US voter and care relatively little who you elect to run your country. As far as I am aware, the only place we've crossed paths in relation to Trump is the discussion about how we record his birthplace, "New York City" or "New York, New York". This seems a fairly innocuous topic to me. You reverted my edit and left a snarky comment in my talk; yet the sources support the edit and the material has survived extensive editing since. You characterise me as an "enemy", but I am not your enemy, just another Wikipedia editor. You accuse VM of "plea-bargaining" when he asked you to remove some inappropriate comments you made which personalised a dispute in a sensitive area. There are plenty of good editors working that article, and from this snapshot of your behaviour I am not convinced that having you continue to edit there will be a net benefit to the project. You will not change my mind with sarcasm, but with evidence that you have honestly examined how your own behaviour comes across to others. --John (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have much of a chance if saying "Shaddap" to another editor is considered a serious straight-up personal attack. I've even less of a chance when that sort of personal attack is not really quite bad enough to be a blockable offense... but rather deserving of a total lifetime ban from all Trump-related articles. Meh. Thanks for the memories. Doc talk 14:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:John reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: ). Thank you. IgnorantArmies (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. I suppose that's easier than thinking of a reason for your edits. This edit summary was sheer wankery. I'll see you in article talk, if you are capable. Don't post here again. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better, surely, than "50 minutes of structured wankery, as performed by a lone Brit with the questionable talent to put a chorus to a verse..."? Have a heart, old boy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Maybe I meant "wonkery". Who knows? --John (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Sarah Olney

[edit]

Hi John! You removed a number of details and their sources from Sarah Olney citing "no tabloids on BLPs please". I restored them as the guidance at WP:BLPSOURCES refers to tabloid journalism not tabloids. The difference comes down to whether or not the piece is based on gossip or is sensationalist in content. Those used in the article are simple biography pieces in a tabloid newspaper. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "Born in 1977, Olney went to Surrey Comprehensive School, before going on to study English literature at King’s College London [35]", is not in any way shape or form biased/sensationalist/gossip, its just stating facts. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. We can't use tabloids to source information on living people, per WP:BLPSOURCES. I've removed this material again. Please don't restore it a second time. I'll pop a template on your user talk just to avoid any further doubt. --John (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the Sun prints something that is true, the probability that a more respectable news source will have the information is approximately 1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. --John (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]
Intellectual and moral laziness all round. Very disappointing. Never mind. --John (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi John, I have just closed the discussion at WP:ANI with the following comments:

I am closing this thread with the result that User:John is admonished for edit warring and incivility. A block at this time is not necessary but he is warned that future occurrences will likely result in a block.

Your actions in this instance were seen by many to below the standards expected, especially for an administrator. While there is no consensus to block you at this time, please bear in mind that such a block would have been justified.

Your experience and knowledge are very much needed and appreciated, and I am confident that we can now put the incident behind us and move forward. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was the incivility? --John (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calling others' contributions "bullshit" and other similar phrasing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What other similar phrasing? --John (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, Martin; I can see you are offline User:MSGJ, but I do require an answer to this. If you intend to block me for some "future occurrences" of using the word "bullshit" "and other similar phrasing" to describe others' contributions, I think it would be as well to list the similar phrasings that you say I have used that you do not like here so we are all clear where we are. Please do so within 24 hours. Thanks. --John (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress on this, User:MSGJ? --John (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply later, but I don't feel the need to meet any deadlines you set. We are all volunteers here. I am disappointed that you, as many would perceive, are wikilawyering the point, rather than accepting it and moving on — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your disappointment is noted, but see WP:ADMINACCT. If you are going to place a restriction on my editing you should be prepared to state what that restriction is in a reasonable timescale. If you cannot do so I will regard your admonishment as null and void. --John (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we are discussing this, I'd also be interested to know roughly how much time you spent investigating the report before closing it. Did you, for example, look at the discussion at Talk:Acela Express? --John (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did read the whole thing. While your position was defensible, your attitude was belligerent, your tone was dismissive of other's contributions, and you were uncivil. In short your posts were not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere, and that was recognised by the majority of participants to the ANI discussion. In contrast your posts yesterday were entirely acceptable so I'm not quite sure why we are still discussing this, as you are clearly aware of the distinction. With regard to your specific question I cannot find any other specific phrases that were regarded as problematic, but as I note above it is often not what you say but how you say it. You may disregard those four words if it pleases you. But in my review today I noticed that you were warned about edit warring as recently as August so you were especially lucky not to have been blocked this time. And now, I hope this has answered all your questions because I really would prefer not to spend any longer on this matter. Good evening and see you round — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. It still isn't clear enough though. From reading the above, it sounds like you would block me if I used the word "bullshit" again, which seems draconian. Wikipedia is not censored, WP:CIVIL is in the eye of the beholder, User:Mackensen said he "[didn't] mind the profanity", and I think you'd find it hard to describe that as a personal attack.
I was responding to two things; one was this rude comment from User:Oknazevad and the other was this (note rude edit summary from the same editor), followed by this removal by User:Mackensen of an article improvement tag I placed in the article to reflect that the matter was being discussed in talk (in a discussion I initiated on 25 October). Note the edit summary: I do not think I need a consensus to place a tag! That's a new one on me, and I continue to "call bullshit" on this, which is a "term meaning "nonsense", especially as a rebuke in response to communication or actions viewed as deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false." (to quote our article, linked above) The repeated claim by several editors there that there is a consensus to falsely describe the Acela Express as a "high-speed" service does not bear any close examination; if you trawl through the talk page it's been raised numerous times over the years and anybody raising it has been browbeaten by this same group of editors using a spurious argument.
I think in your position, it behoves you to look at the antecedent rudeness and false claims that annoyed me so much I used the unpleasant word, else such is highly likely to occur again, if not to me to someone else. There are almost always two sides to a story, as one or two contributors at the peanut gallery pointed out. Finally, I think you, I, and the contributors to the drama board discussion have all been wound up (I think "trolled" is the modern word) by the same user, whose unhelpfulness you have already pointed out at your talk.
I'll tell you what I'll do going forward; I'll try to refrain from pointing out that bullshit is bullshit and instead say "nonsense" in future which means exactly the same thing. I'll also make fewer reverts, but I would like you to mention to the other two editors I mentioned here the unhelpful role they played in this silly incident. How does that sound? --John (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed you haven't got the moral courage or basic competence to investigate this properly and fairly. You made a false claim ("other similar phrasing") then squirmed away from it without apology. You should think seriously about your own competence before taking action in a case like this again. I explicitly reserve the right to call out dishonest and invalid claims as "bullshit" going forward. I regard your bullshit admonishment as null and void. --John (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How you describe other editors is your problem, not mine. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you. You're a former admin and arbitrator; do you still think I need consensus to add a tag indicating that something was being discussed in talk? Or was that a mistake? Could you honestly look through that talk page and see a firm consensus to describe the train as an (unqualified) "high-speed" one? Firm enough for people to revert rather than discussing in talk, as happened? --John (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'd proposed a change, it was up to you to justify it when you were reverted. I'd say the problem is you consider the change so self-evident you're not prepared to engage with anyone who disagrees with you. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed you couldn't find the courage to answer either of my questions. You were wrong on the content issue and you know it. You were wrong to remove the tag, and you know it exacerbated the situation, and you haven't the courage to admit it. My choice of epithet was accurate and I was restrained not to use a stronger word than "bullshit". --John (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, John. You have new messages at Modernist's talk page.
Message added 07:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent van Gogh

[edit]

Thank you for what you did to make the article Vincent van Gogh what it is! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recognising the work I did. I had good collaborators. --John (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also liked what you remarked about not to say "committed suicide", will remember. - Would you do a FAC review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) That's quite a startling way to frame an FAC review request, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asking came to my mind only with the nice response, compare the three others ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to take a look. --John (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Royal

[edit]

The history on line of WW11 ARK ROYAL edited I see by you, states that the torpedo that crippled the BISMARCK entered her port side. In fact it entered her starboard side exploding in the steering compartment so jamming the starboard rudder against the central propellor. Confirmation of this can be seen in the film James Cameron made when he dived on her for the second time in 2002. This can be seen on U-tube Expedition Bismarck Part 5. It would be good to see this corrected as it as my father who in fact fired that lucky shot and not a John Moffat who tried to take credit for it by writing a book titled "I sank the Bismarck".

Signed. RODNEY PATTISSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.11.120 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. --John (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

[edit]

Got held up at work, but was peaking from time to time. Thanks for holding the fort. Ceoil (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --John (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons

[edit]
Nollaig shona duit
Early holiday wishes. Please feel free to ask for an ear on any future projects that may take your fancy. Ceoil (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Same to you. --John (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Team

[edit]

I'm guessing , based on your signature (John "Hannibal" Smith) that you're an A-Team fan. Am I correct ? KoshVorlon 15:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a signature and never have had. My user name is just my name. I liked that show well enough but I preferred the original Starsky and Hutch. Good memories! --John (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your name pop- up on Lupin's Anti Vandal tool as John "Hannibal" Smith, that's why I asked the question about the A-Team. No problem. I used to watch Starsky and Hutch as well.

Had you seen | this article about the real Starsky and Hutch granted, it's the daily mail, but it was still good reading ! KoshVorlon 16:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that would happen. Can you provide a link for me? Cool article. No wonder those guys are pissed off. --John (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to be a screenshot, as it's Lupin's AntiVandal Tool. If I see it again, I'll screenshot it for you (with the URL showing, of course ) KoshVorlon 17:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it again, but was unable to screen capture it. It's literally your name that's showing up that way, not your signature. It shows up as John "Hannibal" Smith. Check recent changes and you should see it as well ! KoshVorlon 17:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to state the bloody obvious, but are you sure you're not confusing User:John and User:John "Hannibal" Smith? Just a thought. ‑ Iridescent 18:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. No need to give us all a lectur. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I think that's the explanation. One of you should probably see if they want the "This user is a John" userbox I have on my user page. --John (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Iridescent, be careful saying "bloody"; you'll be aware if you watch my page that I was recently threatened with a block for saying "bullshit". Truly the new infantilism has emerged. --John (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since in the last week I've described Chillum as "liking to posture as Jimmy Wales's temperance spoon" and five of the winning candidates at the recent arbcom elections as "having such an air of forced blandness they give the impression they shit boiled eggs", I imagine that if the civility police were going to come knocking, they'd have done so by now. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. I didn't even look to see who was running for Arbcom this time round, it's such bollocks. Some forget this is an encyclopedia we are writing, not some pissy social networking site. Wikipedia is not censored, I applaud your honesty, and if I get blocked for continuing to use language like "bullshit" to describe bullshit, I am sure I will find another hobby. --John (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, that's bloody bullshit and you know it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting! Thanks. Actually, our article bullshit is also quite interesting. --John (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... also bollocks --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Applogies for the late reply, but no, I'm not confusing him for another user,

see the screenshot below. Notice that it shows up as John "Hannibal " Smith (Admin), and when I click on the link , I'm brought to this page.



KoshVorlon 13:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon, have you bothered to carry out even the most cursory of checks? It took all of three seconds for me to navigate to the history of the page in question and see that the user in question is indeed User: John "Hannibal" Smith and not User:John. ‑ Iridescent 14:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like a bug in Lupin's Anti Vandal tool. User John "Hannibal" Smith is not an admin as far as I can see. Probably the quote marks confusing it at a guess. TwoTwoHello (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting glitch. Perhaps User:Lupin should be informed? --John (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But as I see they have not edited for many years, it may be that nothing can be done. --John (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia!

[edit]
Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Same to you. --John (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie Jacques on Juke Box Jury

[edit]

How do you report a troll using sock puppets and repeated abuse? I opened a complaint and the troll deleted it, without penalty. What is the procedure? I emailed wikipedia and got no reply.72.245.246.219 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please report your suspicions at WP:SPI. Have a festive Yuletide! CassiantoTalk 00:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please John, I asked you for help, not the troll who is stalking and abusing me. Thank you for your response.72.245.246.219 (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPI. --John (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Berlin Attack

[edit]

Hi John, I don't understand your objection to my edit. Do you dispute that there is currently a wave of terror in Europe? No other link in that article provides that information. Please reconsider. Yabti (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest bringing this discussion to Talk:2016 Berlin attack to see what others think. --John (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas !

[edit]

I haven't been very active on Wikipedia this autumn. I do though want to wish you a Merry Christmas ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the same to you. --John (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oi!, Jolly Jock the stir-up man ...

[edit]

Martinevans123 (Santa's Drop-in Centre) ... sends you ...


... warmest seasonal wishes for ...
Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you may find your true star...

Thank you! --John (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
Merry Christmas John!!
Hi John, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Davey, and the same to you! --John (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John! :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]
 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2017 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Modernist. I wish you all the same things. --John (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

[edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you! Same to you. --John (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

[edit]

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks a lot! Same to you. --John (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium sulfacetate edit

[edit]

Hi John, regarding this edit that you labelled as a contradiction. Would you please explain, I don't see what the contradiction is? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The sentence read "Below this level, a mixture of aluminium triacetate and aluminium sulfacetate is formed, with a mole ratio near 2:1 making the latter the major product." If the mole ratio is 2:1, the former would be the major product. --John (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood. The ratio of 2:1 refers to the reagents used, here lead(II) acetate and aluminium sulfate as defined in the preceding sentence, and at exactly 2:1 the product mixture is (theoretically) aluminium sulfacetate only, as is confirmed in the chemical equation after that paragraph. The 2:1 ratio is not referring to aluminium triacetate and aluminium sulfacetate, and near a reagent mix of 2:1 the sulfacetate is the major product. Does this make sense? EdChem (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that does make sense. If I as a Chemistry educator am capable of misunderstanding the sentence, this suggests that the wording needs to be clarified. --John (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the overly detailed explanation, I had forgotten / not realised your chemistry education background. I did wonder about clarifying, but the context of the preceding sentences seemed to me to be clear with "this level" invoking the stoichiometric ratio from the prior sentence:
A common approach to preparing aluminium sulfacetate is by reaction of aluminium sulfate with lead(II) acetate, the relative amount of which dictates the outcome of the reaction. When the stoichiometric ratio of lead acetate to aluminium sulfate exceeds 3:1, the process is driven to completion and only aluminium triacetate is formed. Below this level, a mixture of aluminium triacetate and aluminium sulfacetate is formed, with a mole ratio near 2:1 making the latter the major product.
Perhaps something like:
A common approach to preparing aluminium sulfacetate is by reaction of aluminium sulfate with lead(II) acetate. The relative amount of each reagent controls the composition of the resulting mixture. When the stoichiometric ratio of lead acetate to aluminium sulfate exceeds 3:1, the process is theoretically driven to completion and aluminium triacetate is the sole product formed. Below this level, as the relative amount of lead acetate is decreased, a mixture of aluminium triacetate and aluminium sulfacetate results that becomes increasingly rich in the latter as the reagent mole ratio approaches 2:1.
What do you think? Other suggestions welcome.  :) Thanks. EdChem (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Edited for ce to suggestion, formatting and to highlight changes with colouring. EdChem (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for indulging me. You are right, the meaning is clear when you read it carefully. I'll try to comer up with a simpler formulation. --John (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you object if I either return the original version or add the alternative above while you contemplate? EdChem (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. John (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

[edit]
 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John/Archive_2016&oldid=1091516860"