We have a problem on this page with a user who is using multiple IP accounts and removing correctly sourced information. I think this has been brought to attention previously but no consensus was established on Talk Page that the persistent removal of sourced information was justified. I can keep reverting but it's getting boring now. Regards. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I am not sure that frequency would justify semi-protection although obviously I can do that if it continues or gets worse. Please let me know if that happens. John (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have had a few worries about the prose standards of a few FAs recently, and I was looking for a small favour. Forensic chemistry has been at FAC (here) for a long time now, and has three supports, with everything else now checked off. I'm going to promote it tonight or tomorrow, and I just wondered if you could cast an eye over it from a prose viewpoint before I do. If not, no worries. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I warn you, I am very busy IRL for the next while, but I promise I will do my best. Thank you for asking me. --John (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US
There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2017 (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.
Welcome indeed to post-truth Wikipedia, where the fact that Trump was due in court in December could be excised from Wikipedia in November for over 30 days, despite it being reported in multiple reliable sources, because someone objected and opened an RfC on the inclusion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah777, I see MelanieN is active on that page. She's a Trump supporter, I think, and an admin with revdel rights, who was using those rights the other night to remove references to the media stories about the "dossier" on what allegedly got up to in Russia, despite them being reported by many mainstream news outlets. She may be able to shed some light on disappearing edits? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!23:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sarah, and thanks for the ping, Bastun. Sarah, I do see a comment from you on that page, but it's not in the "Russian trolls' support for Trump" Section Biased paragraph - it's immediately below that one under a separate section heading, "Bizarre title". Is that the edit you were looking for? (For some reason your signature does not show the date you posted it; remember to use FOUR tildes, or to use the signature icon at the top of the edit window, so that the system will record the date as well as your signature.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Bastun re: "she is a Trump supporter, I think": I am an editor at many Trump articles, yes. I think my editing is sufficiently neutral that nobody knows who or what I support. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) There are a whole load of edits from 6th January that appear to have been excised - you can see who made the edit and to what section, but they're not present, nor are they accessible via page history. " think my editing is sufficiently neutral that nobody knows who or what I support. 0;-D"... er, yeah, sure... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!23:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c x 4) Sarah, your section is still there right now; look in the table of contents, "Bizarre title". Multiple versions of the talk page that day, including yours, were oversighted (nothing to do with your edit, someone added non-political info that needed oversighting, and the material wasn't removed until later in the day, so all intervening versions had to be oversighted). But that just deletes those specific versions, not the material anyone added that was still there after the oversightable material was removed. The signature with no date is the same way you added it. MelanieN, who is not an oversighter, had nothing to do with it; charming that someone jumps to that conclusion. So no conspiracy, no censorship, no politically-motivated anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. I am sorry I have been inactive; my Internet connection has been problematic. I expect to be back up and running by tonight or tomorrow at the latest. Sarah, I can see your contribution there so it was not removed. I am going to mark this as resolved. --John (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2017 (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.
Thank you! Scheduling is done for January, and it's meant for 2 February. Haven't been that close, if I don't count the nomination of Brianboulton's Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev), which was scheduled the following day. - Several supported now. The question where your second audio belongs is still open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TheTrolleyPole. You added a raft of quotations in a standalone section. They need to be summarised and integrated. I apologise for not messaging you when I removed it; I meant to and I got distracted. --John (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
I'm not sure how busy you are at the moment, but if you are looking for articles to turn your talents towards, there are a few at FAC where I'd appreciate someone checking the prose. There is Nyuserre Ini (FAC here), Ben Crosby (FAC here) and House of Music (FAC here). None of them have anything glaring, but prose reviews are hard to come by, and if you find yourself with any time, your help on any of these would be appreciated as always. If not, no worries! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Working my way through. My time on here is limited at the moment but I really appreciate the steer, and the compliment. --John (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you remember haing made audio samples for peace and joy? In the FAC, there are questions about them, - could you please take a look, because I don't even understand the questions, FUR, seems to have to do with licensing. - Happy Valentine's Day, flower on my talk! Of all New Year's cards, I kept yours ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a tangential subject, I see we have over 1,800 BLPs citing the Daily Mail. There has been a flurry of chat both on and off-wiki about getting rid of the Mail citations, but not much on-the-ground grass roots activity to do it properly. I've been replacing citations to the Mail (and the Sun, and the Mirror, and the Daily Star, not so much the News of the World any more though...) for years; unfortunately many of the articles are the typical tabloid celebrity types like Lucy Mecklenburgh that I really can't motivate myself to go and research in serious encyclopedic detail, and I don't think I could make an AfD stick. Still, if all my fellow BLP watchers strive to clean up one article a day, we should be rid of the Mail in .... a couple of years. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure we could do it faster than that. We should. I'm on holiday right now but when I get back I intend to roll up my sleeves and get on with the work. --John (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John ! Perhaps you could help me a bit. In Spain, there is a province called Galicia. But in Poland and Ukraine there is also a province with that name, but I have seen it spelled as "Galizia" (or possibly "Galizien"). Anyways, do you think it would be wrong to spell Galicia (Eastern Europe) as Galizia, in order to solve the confusion with Galicia (Spain). As I see it, does this come down to the English language and (possibly ?) how well the Galicia (Eastern Europe) is known , in English. If you have any thoughts about this issue, that is. The eastern province was involved in the First World War Eastern Front (between the Russians and the Austro-Hungarians, I think) Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
Thank you, but I need to sleep now. I have finished the first pass of copyediting. There may be one or two other things, and I still don't think we need the respell, but it is now approaching the point where I could support on prose. --John (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day John, I'd like to do some more editing. Are you done for now? I don't want to tread on your mighty tough toes. Sandbh (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I saw the ping. Look after your emergency (which is by definition more important than Wikipedia) and good luck. I may comment there. --John (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John ! In the article James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, and in its last part, "death" - has someone put a template, which states "repetitive repetition of redundancy". If I understand that correctly, can I not really agree. Not as the part is today at least. I myself as well as others have presumably & hopefully made some improvements. So if possible (only), do you think I can remove that template now ? (Just by the way, I don't recall the title, but I have watched the very good BBC-film about Mary, Queen of Scots and "Bothwell" as he was called in that TV-film. Perhaps 8-10 years ago). The template refers to his last years in Norway and Denmark, not just his death. So I have in mind to make new headlines in that part, if the template can be removed. Boeing720 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KZ Dachau Entranceedit.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. I am somewhat semi-retired from Wikipedia, so next time it goes up for a FAC, should you think of me, please email me and I will post a review again. (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally your edits on Alan Sugar - I've got a problem with my touchscreen! I've now reverted my revert - my apologies! 19:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrStrauss (talk • contribs)
It would be awfully nice of you to respond, John. I do hope we can move on from any disagreements we may have had, in this New Year. Thanks regardless.--Nevé–selbert19:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I have been busy in real life. I did look and I agree with the current compromise there, of adding a link to the lead. I'm not a great fan of hat-notes. --John (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you to the FAC: with the problems the licensing of the audio files you kindly supplied seem to cause (and nothing I even understand): would you mind removing them? Perhaps take to the talk page for someone to help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thread is closed and hatted, and we are not censored, so I decline to delete it. I have however warned both editors as I share your concerns about the appropriateness of the discussion. --John (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, When removing DM sources you need to replace them with other sources,
Someone was reported on ANI sometime last year for removing the DM and not replacing it with anything and I believe they were blocked for a few weeks however I could be wrong on that,
Consensus was to remove the DM however there was no consensus to actually remove them but ofcourse if you want to start an RFC and get consensus I obviously have no objections,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk12:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I thought you were removing the DM, To be honest some of the stuff you didnt need to remove like a housemate exiting etc etc however I'd rather not editwar over it so I've self reverted, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk12:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Yes, the tabloid stuff is a mixture of the good the bad and the insupportable. Easier to just remove it and anything sourcable can be sourced later. --John (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains plenty of idiotic sourced statements, including Lenin was agaiunst imperialism. Instead to remove them you remove my text, making my work more difficult. You haven't even asked me to add the sources. Is it too dificault ask me?
Thanks for the message. Especially on a Featured Article, it is imperative that anything you add needs to be sourced properly, as a minimum. --John (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I get that English is not your first language, and I get that you wish to redress what you see as a bias in the article. You will not get that by adding poorly-written, poorly or completely unsourced garbage about statues being vandalised. You will not get it either by accusing me of vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND for why. A better strategy would be to raise your concerns at the article's talk page. You should be prepared to bring excellent sources (preferably English-language ones) and to discuss and compromise with others. Good luck. --John (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trainspotting (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Withdrawal. 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.
Hello again, John ! I have recently noticed kind of duplicated articles within the scope of Swedish cities/towns and their municipalities, which I cannot find any parallels to in articles about towns/cities in other countries. (Alright I have not checked them all, but some) I think for instance that every information in Helsingborg Municipality could fit inside the Helsingborg article - the parts that are not already. Also the included list of minor settlements, just under a headline "the Municipality". I believe it to be an "import" from Swedish Wikipedia, which possibly even may be undue here. (?) There might be exceptions where it's a good idea to distinguish a city from its municipality, or however things are organised in different countries. But generally as well as in the mentioned example... ? I've brought it up at the talk-page of Helsingborg Municipality. I'm sorry if the issue appear dull, but I hope not. Perhaps more suitable for the Village-Pump ? But if you have an opinion about this, then I would be keen to hear it. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, John. I think your block of EEng was based on a misunderstanding, as evidenced in this and this comment. He didn't actually call anybody a disruptive prick in saying "Jrcla2 was offering a way to see what you're doing as the result of a cultural difference rather than you just being a disruptive prick, and you choose to turn it into 'racism'". Compare also Mr rnddude's comment here, which I agree with. Nor did EEng IMO harass the user, as your note in the block log states. Please unblock. Of course I realize you may not be online, sorry about that, but I don't want to leave him blocked much longer — I only just noticed the block, which you placed some hours ago — so unless you turn up and respond to me pretty soon, I'll unblock myself. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk17:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, Bishonen. I did not misunderstand, I don't think, but if the consensus is that it was ok for EEng to use this word in these circumstances, I am fine with them being unblocked. --John (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not now sure, looking at stuff like this, that unblocking was the best move. I think the user knew very well how the comment would be perceived, and is now having the time of his life thinking he has been vindicated. Thought experiment for today; how would it play out if an editor at AN/I was to comment on the behaviour of an editor identifying as female by "hypothetically" calling them a cunt? Seems pretty much the equivalent to me. --John (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bishonen is the admin you should be debating this with, especially given recent punitive blocks and their results. Just let it go John, there are some who are golden, and there are some who are not. EEng is one of those, like Floq, who is inherently entitled to be riled up and fire off a "fuck off" or "prick" or "asshole" or "cunt", or be "contextually rude". Others, like 99.95% of editors are not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following up your point about a female editor "hypothetically" being called a "cunt", is it any better for an admin to "hypothetically" call an editor a "prick"? Or are we just assuming double standards because "men get over it, just banter, right?" The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a conclusion that one might make from reading how the discussion was going last time I looked. It is one I disagree with. --John (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's good advice, Gerda. Is that another of your fantastic articles I need to read and review? You are an example to us all. I have some article improvement work to do but it is getting late now for tonight. It will have to be tomorrow. Take care. --John (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I try to avoid the EEng talk, takes too long to load, so missed that whole thing. I got him to work on Ritchie's, picturing me as TRM groupie on my request ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt I apologise for the delay in returning to your GAN, I will do so forthwith. John, I'm sorry you've been placed in such a position by reacting (correctly) to abuse of others from a long-term user. Sadly it seems it is now accepted by some admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, you're probably better off doing something other than making utterly stupid comments here. Go away and do something to improve Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just taking a break. Beyond that I refer the gallant and honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. Always a pleasure. EEng21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's interesting to see your on that staircase now. I don't care at all what you have to say or what you do, I know that you think you're incredibly funny and that you believe your humour benefits Wikipedia, which isn't true. You're on the path now, see you soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you get some sort of kick out of causing disruption by using gendered obscenities, EEng? If not, why don't you go and learn from your lucky escape instead of joking about it like it was some sort of badge of pride? Also, do you stand by your comment I highlighted in the diff above? If you do, I agree with The Rambling Man that you may quickly work up to another block. If you don't, you should reflect on what a fool you've made of yourself and the degree of disruption you have caused with your unsolicited intervention at AN/I; two blocks and one unblock, so far. --John (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for reminding me, both of you, that among the trolls and attention seekers on this site there are decent people trying to improve articles. Well done. --John (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For continuing to add to Jacob Gens ... I know I'm being a pain, but I keep finding sources - it's like a scavenger hunt to find these sources - one leads to another which leads to another... at this rate I'll end up working on Vilna Ghetto also just because I have the sources... Ealdgyth - Talk21:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a labour of love when you reach that point of no return on an article. I'll be happy to look at both articles again, or any that you write in the future. Keep up your good work. --John (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was the User who first created our Brexit article, I believe in late 2012. However, when I look at the article history my original stub article, plus subsequent users' contributions, are entirely absent. The first recorded edit is in 2014!
I have never seen this before in an article I have initiated. Can you see why this might be, and if it is possible to recover the early edit history of the Brexit article? Ta. Mais oui! (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only see a redirect there in the early history, no content that is worth restoring. Could those early edits have gone to the history of another page during a page move? It's certainly been moved about a bit and that can happen. I will continue to look. --John (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That's it. Great. Many thanks for finding it. But if memory serves me correctly that early stub version was created under the page name Brexit, and nothing else. Is it not therefore logical that the edit history be recorded under the correct page name? Mais oui! (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the article of William Henry Bury that was featured this month, I thought that links needed to be added to identify Scotland which you later removed. Perhaps it was confusion on my part, but I'm new here, so do you know what the policy is on links? I thought I'd just drop in and ask because frankly I'm a bit confused. highresheadphones (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Capstar.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:JohnERaker.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
It's looking good. I think I am done for now. Have some comments; want them in article talk? Or if you're going to FAC we can do it there. --John (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing this removal of the link, are you sure that many of the readers will understand the difference between GB and UK (let alone any other possible permutations)? I know you are right to remove the link in the light of the WP:OVERLINK guidelines, but I think it's a beneficial link this time, given the number of people who will simply think it an alternative name for GB. Either way, I will leave it to your discretion to decide whether to re-add it or not. - Sigersson (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. I wonder would you have a look at the recent series of IP edits at Croesyceiliog School. I have attempted to engage this editor, both at the article Talk Page and at their own user Talk Page, but without any success. I am unsure as to the most appropriate next step. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken to them. In fairness the material isn't referenced so could be removable under BLP. But they have to make that argument, even in an edit summary, otherwise it looks like vandalism. --John (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In no uncertain terms it, seems. But yes, I'll have a look for sources. Where there's also a separate Category linked it's sometimes difficult to know who are the most notable of the notables. Especially when the list is just a copy of the four items in the Category! Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None taken though obviously I think you're wrong too. We should actively seek a third opinion if nobody else comes along at talk. John (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I hope all is well with you. After something of a break, I have recently been working on the militant suffragette Emily Davison—she of the 1913 Epsom Derby fame; the article is now at PR. Should you have the time and inclination, I would be absolutely delighted to hear any thoughts and comments you may have about its suitability for a push to FAC. Obviously there is no problem if you are otherwise engaged or don't find the subject of interest. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny what a second pair of eyes picks up, isn't it? It's a pretty good article and I expect it will cruise through FAC. Glad to see no "however"s though! --John (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And "later"s too, by the looks of things! I know that's a turn of speech that fails logic: of course she reported something "later" than the event. I will try and seed a couple of "however"s in any additions, just to give you practice ;-) Cheers for your eagle eye on this - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John ! I want to express my sincere thanks for all the advises you have given me earlier. I must consider myself as grown up by now, or "teenager" at the very least :), at age 52. Also your advises when my dad passed away, am I extremely grateful for. Not even in the "real world", have someone else given me much of advises at all. It's still sad, but life must go on. Thanks John ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's extremely generous of you for the tiny amount of work I did there. Thanks, your recognition is much appreciated. I always enjoy working on your articles. --John (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarah for asking me. Speaking as your mentor (if I may still claim that honour afer all these years) I recommend you withdraw from that discussion, having made your point. I will make another more precise recommendation towards addressing your point there withn 24 hours. Best wishes, --John (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry Sarah for missing my deadline. I'm on holiday and have sporadic access. Leave it with me. I promise I haven't forgotten. --John (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aware as I am of Wiki Admin political bias and their propensity to censorship (usually by abusive misuse of WP:CIVIL) I've now taken the issue to my own talk page. Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've seen your contribution to the talk page of the article with the biased title...not impressed, frankly. Essentially what you are saying is the Wiki is mod mob rule..where rules don't count, except that they privilege mob rule over rational argument or even "laws" such as WP:NPOV.
The irony in this case is that anti-Trump "liberals" in the MSM are currently getting a bit hysterical about "populist" politicians and positions!
Kinda reinforces my observation that hypocrisy really is the only core value of Western establishment "liberals". I say this speaking a a real liberal. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lest their be any mistake - personally - I regard Trump as a misogynistic clown....but I'd regard the PNAC Establishment (who embrace the freedom sheikhs of Saudi as "our" indispensable allies) as an existential threat to the future freedom of 99% of humanity. And I believe the average US self-imagined "liberal" is part of the problem...Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you are not happy Sarah. Wikipedia can be a bad place for those of with a political conscience. Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. John (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took a corresponding look at this article and made several of the same copyedits a second time. Thanks for the heads-up. --John (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Underwater diving is pretty close to promotion at FAC, and just awaiting a source review (FAC here). It's quite a technical article, and as you are always good with prose on these, I wondered if you might get a chance to have a look? If not, no problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If after relentless challenges by editors who just don't get it, you manage
to keep all or at least a portion of whatever hair you have left despite the frustration,
you deserve recognition. Your hair must be as thick as the skin on the opposition, which means
you have really strong hair follicles. Next time it happens - and it will happen as long as you're
an admin - just keep doing what you do, relax, enjoy a cold 🍺 or 🍷, cut eat some cheese
or have a bar of 🍫 - or hell, go to the bar - and buy stock in Rogaine. Atsme📞📧19:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Atsme, I appreciate that. Reminds me of Frank Zappa's quote about hydrogen not being the commonest thing in the universe sometimes. Never mind, I'm sure it will all come right in the end. --John (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What was commonest? Edits moving articles in and out of categories and adjusting wikiproject importance ratings? EEng19:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two chemists go into a bar. The first one says "I think I'll have an H2O." The second one says "I think I'll have an H2O too" — and he died. Atsme📞📧19:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with There is an anything goes attitude that prevails; an "everything going on", and consequently "nothing going on" syndrome; this creates an aesthetic traffic jam with no firm and clear direction and with every lane on the artistic superhighway filled to capacity? Makes perfect sense to me. EEng13:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist, I took a look at it. I think you and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz need to sort that one out in talk. I can see both points of view. Modernist, to write stuff like that it would certainly have to be referenced. Where does it come from? --John (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to sort things out on talk pages with Modernist for years (see [3] for an example), but he consistently makes phony accusations of vandalism and asserts his own long-rejected opinions about nonfree content policy. His goal is to drive off those who disagree with him by turning every dispute into a timesink unless he gets his own way. Also note, that although he paints this as another example of The Big Bad Wolfowitz on a jihad, the image removals here were initiated by another editor and reversed by Modernist with misleading or empty edit summaries -- hardly the behavior of an editor interested in good faith discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John,I've referenced that section, he always objects to the use of contemporary art imagery, no matter that the images are relevant, important and are accompanied by Fair Use Rationales which are required by the foundation. The Foundation made exception a long time ago to accomadate images of contemporary art. I used to have these conversations with Tyrenius who I still wish was around...Modernist (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, often it doe. EEng21:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I really tried to come up with an image for "Art criticism doe", but it was a nut too tough to crack.[reply]
Hi there, I have a question in regards to table formatting, over on the Gilmore Girls page, a user claims that character descriptions are meant to be present in the table on the main page, yet I find it completely redundant as each main character already has a biography on separate pages, and on other character tables, there are no descriptions since it's just unneeded in most cases. Also, I claim that characters should be ordered by appearances, rather than their status', would you agree or are they in the complete right? I can't find any rulings this other user is claiming, yet I want to avoid getting into an edit war. Any help would be appreciated, thank you! MSMRHurricane (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, in regards to recurring, guest, special guest status', in character tables, we label character who have been in 3+ episodes as recurring regardless of their title credit, correct? I mean, I know this, but I am looking for further validation as some editors think differently, and base it purely on rank (special guest > recurring) yet that's not the case, as that's false information in regards to that characters appearances in that particular season. So, on the American Horror Story character table, editors are placing character in wrongful sections, just because they were credited as "special guest" yet they appeared in 3+ episodes, therefore they should be in the recurring section, not the special guest section. That's how I, and a lot of other editors, have been displaying these tables. Please let me know what you think, cheers! MSMRHurricane (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as this stands I don't think I have an opinion. Can you explain what the problem is, and link me to a talk page where you are discussing it? If so I may weigh in. --John (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just messaged the editor and gave him my opinion, so I will wait to see if he is willing to compromise or not, and then involve other editors. But if you would take a look at the cast table, the set-up is fine, seeing as AHS is a anthology-type show, it works. So the sections are main cast, recurring cast and guest (was simply special guest before), and I had moved a few characters from the guest section into the recurring section, as some of their first appearances on the show have been multiple episodes (3+ episodes), therefore they should be in the recurring section, and not in the guest section. And then they might appear in another season later on, with only 1 or 2 episodes and they were titled as special guest in the episode, and with that some editors have moved those characters back to the guest section as they believe the only thing that matters is that that character was credited as a special guest. But, in my opinion, it's false information as that character was recurring in earlier seasons, and there should not be this "rank system", etc. Hopefully that makes sense to you. I just believe, regardless of being credits as guest or special guest, if that character was recurring, they should be in the right section, or then whats the point of having the sections to begin with? MSMRHurricane (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got links on my userpage going to custom searches - in this case it's simply thesun.co.uk incategory:"Living people". Then I look at which are the most "gossipy" of the search results, and go off that. In this case, a more respectable source gives a better context than a tabloid one that gives off suggestions of bestiality. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my comments in Talk:Jane Bonham Carter, Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury#Tabloid sources, I also want to question your edit to Rebecca Loos that you mention above. You have identified an more reliable source for the material but you have failed to add it to the article and have removed the content, removing the context from the following sentence. I propose to restore the content, citing The Guardian. I would avoid the word 'masturbation', in spite of its use in The Guardian article, because the implication that the act was performed for sexual pleasure is not supported by The Guardian. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon you're talking to Ritchie333? It's absolutely fine to restore material to articles if you find proper sources, and have a talk-page consensus that it passes WP:WEIGHT. This is maybe one for article talk. --John (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the better source was identified by Ritchie333, sorry. However, your edit did remove the context from the next sentence, making it unclear what the RSPCA and PETA were objecting to. When removing a sentence please read the surrounding text and ensure that it makes sense after your edit.Verbcatcher (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forth Road Bridge, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SpyMagician, if you hang out a lot, and you pay close attention, you'll find editors going through all sorts of things: divorces, natural disasters, family deaths, the kinds of things that people go through because they're people, because we're not just editors; we're also arguably people most of the time. Everything is a means to an end and that end is building an encyclopedia. We're not here to bend the arc of the moral universe more closely to justice; we're here to make more knowledge more free to more people. If anything gets in the way of that then ignore it. GMGtalk23:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; like mine, your editing ebbs and flows. Contribute what you can, when you can. Your contributions are valued. I see you started not long after me; do you find, like me, that for all its problems, you still deeply believe in the idea of jointly building a free encyclopedia after all these years? --John (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iridescent. That's a wee bit unfair; Sarah's last block was six years ago and her last unblock by HJ Mitchell was mediated by me, as we both remember well. She's been a model citizen for a good while, but like me she has bursts of activity. --John (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Would you mind looking a bit into the article Racism in South Korea? For a long time, this article has a lot of problems due to faked citations by two users, one of them Spacecowboy420. In the end, the article was nuked and rewritten as stub with scientific sources (see talk page from here). Now, the users set their hands again on this article, adding a trivial case from an unreliable source. Moreover, the source doesn't even incorporate what the users claim in the wikipedia article. Spacecowboy reverted already four times. Unfortunately, I have no more time for the English wikipedia to look into this more. But see also Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea#Korea_Expos.C3.A9_at_RSN. Regards --Christian140 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. If if it does not constitute any breach of policy, I would like to know more about the nature of this block. I keep track of POV Angola editors and sometimes they vanish when they sense that someone is on to them and resurface with a different style (they abandon some of the articles they used to edit, take on new ones to throw you off strack). I had my first encounter with this JoetheMoe25 guy today and left him two messages. As an aside, one of the guys that I cannot find under a new identity is this guy, who disappeared in July. I have a number of possible reincarnations, but need some time to study the edits. Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to warn this user under BLP Arbcom that reverts restoring questionable material to BLPs are not permitted, but then I realised that the article in question is under 1RR from a different ArbCom case, for which the user had already been notified. 1 month seemed reasonable given the block log. --John (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add a talk page thanks for the cleanup on the Philipp Plein page. As a new editor it's much appreciated, and you gave me something new to learn. If you don't mind a quick newbie nag, can you give me a quick explanation on the "no tabloids on BLPs please" edit? I see that you didn't make any changes to the info on the page at all so I'm just wondering if I should take the time to dig up some sourcing to replace what was edited out. Again, the help in cleaning up the page is much appreciated from this Wiki newb! JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John! Double sharp and I are about to submit the article thorium to FAC; all it needs before this happens is a good prose quality check and possibly a copyedit. You've watched over prose quality during some recent chemical element FACs. It would be great and much appreciated if you could handle it for us just prior to, rather than during, the FAC. Would you please help us out?--R8R (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thorium forms a one-atom-thin layer of tungsten. This sentence in the text doesn't say, but is supposed to say that tungsten forms a one-atom-thin layer on thorium.
The need to irradiate 232Th with neutrons and process it come before these advantages become real this phrase is supposed to say that while thorium can be advantageous to use, the drawbacks come into play long before the advantages do and the technology needed to deal with these drawbacks is still not developed. I hope these two explanations make it clear now?
Just to make it clear: what exactly do you mean when you say, "first pass"? Is it "go forth, and I'll later add some minor changes" or is it "another pass just as significant is yet to come"?--R8R (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, thank you for asking me, it's fun and I've finally had time to read it properly this week. By "first pass", I mean that I have read through the entire article and trimmed out infelicities, redundancies, MoS glitches (though I've not yet looked at references or overlinking) and tried to clarify what was unclear. I'd now probably reflect for a day or two and see if there is anything structural that leaps out. Given the article's length, it's less likely to be a major omission than streamlining what is already there. --John (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you liked it. I've seen this article too many times lately and can no longer judge if it's up to my usual standard. It seemed good as usual but it felt like I needed a second opinion on this to be sure.
Thanks for clarification. I was expecting this kind of a reply but it still felt right to double-check. Then I'll wait for your signal before we can begin the FAC.--R8R (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John ! Perhaps this isn't something you will find to be interesting, I don't know. I do however wonder if you possible could give some advises or whatever. In our article Swedish Wikipedia , has a fairly strong dispute arisen. As the article already explain how large Swedish Wikipedia is, in terms of number of articles , have I and others come to the conclusion that its so called Wikimedia Article Depth (which is extremely low) also ought to be mentioned. And this is mentioned at not so few of our articles on other Wikipedias. At the talk-page have I given User:Adville a fair chance to explain why this shouldn't be mentioned as well. User:Adville has, in my opinion, totally failed in explaining why the poor article depth cannot be mentioned. He believes this is POV, possibly due to an icon I have copied from another editor ("Proud Swedes in exile") to my own page (I just have it there, I feel more like some "Half-Danish" person from Scania). But this has in my opinion nothing to do with the actual facts. I'm only asking if you possible could have a brief look at this, as an administrator. The matter borders to warring.
Sorry for disturbing Boeing720 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Adville (who himself began this POV allegation) not appear to listen at all. Perhaps another comment from you could be helpful. (for now,I have removed all primary sources in the article and referred to the talk-page, but Adville simply refuses to try to solve this matter. I have made a proposal at the talk-page). I'm truly sorry for the trouble I may have caused you. Boeing720 (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page protection you did, is in my opinion totally correct. (Although it didn't suite my efforts at that moment, but still) Equally, for the "this is not helpful" talk-page part, I must thank you. <
But could you please have a look what someone have done with my comments to XXN and Adville ? They have vanished. Please see history file Talk:Swedish Wikipedia: Difference between revisions. Is this OK, in your opinion as an administrator ? I haven't the foggiest idea of how this is possible, but it's nevertheless done. Thanks and sorry for the troubles ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can such errors occur unintentionally ? I'm honestly sorry for have pulled you into this mess. If possible, could you restore those deleted replies ? If I do it "manually" Dan, Adville or XXN may accuse me of whatever... I really want (and have wanted) to be constructive here. I can admit to have used coloured unnecessary statements, earlier. But at that time the lead was boastful as well as lacking sources. But already long before I contacted you, I was honestly being constructive. Whilst others, in my opinion, were not. Again sorry for this mess. Boeing720 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a common understanding has been accepted. The Rfc was a splendid suggestion, RexxS was very good at explaining. To all who participated there, I assume, including myself. I think I have learned not so little from this. I still believe that the use of talk-pages kind of ensures Wikipedia's quality in general, and in the long run especially - but arguing over trivial matters in an article which I guess rather few of our readers will read anyways, then the time could be used much better.
I would however like to round this off with "a classical" example of a really unfruitful talk-page part. But it's funny at least to me, as someone suggested this:
"Also, were he new, I would propose baking Boeing720 into a bacon danish with a side of bacon as per WP:DELICIOUS for bringing this to AN/I in an instance of unintentional forum/admin shopping." This was naturally meant as a joke. I was never really involved, but someone (else) asked me to make a comment through some link, and my comment somehow came to AN/I (apparently). The full "debate" is found here [[7]], and begins after the headline "Exotic names ?" (a closed part followed by "Requested move 22 February 2015" in bright green). A brief look ought to be sufficient. Thank you very much indeed, John !Boeing720 (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, so you know of a way to remove a particular user's edits from a watchlist? Your recent military products edit campaign is filling up my watchlist and making it very difficult to spot other edits besides yours. I'm not complaining about your edits themselves, just wondering if there is a way to exclude them from my watchlist while your campaign is ongoing, even just temporarily so I can check other edits in the same timeframes. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the trouble. I could mark them as minor and you could change your settings to ignore minor edits. I'm not sure, let me think. --John (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of an inconvenience than trouble, as I have about 26,000 pages watchlisted, mostl in military and aviation subjects.. Marking them as minor would be fine with me, as it's easy to remove them temporarily on the watchlist. - BilCat (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. I think the edits I'm making do fall into minor editing but it's still nice to think others will check them in case I make any mistakes. Thanks for the feedback. --John (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, and thanks also. Of course, it you make an occasional edit in this campaign that is major, it'd be fine not to mark it minor. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An edit you made to the Philipp Plein page that's causing an error.
Hey John, noticed something while I was making an edit on the "Career" section to the Philipp Plein page. When doing a preview before saving I noticed an error of " Cite warning: <ref> tag with name bloomberg.com cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined at all". Looking over things I noticed it was a broken <ref> tag but it was on one of the edits you made to one of my previous edits. Instead of just fixing the tag and leaving something possibly incorrect with the link as a source, can I get an idea of what you were thinking for the change so I can update it correctly? Again much appreciated. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The reason you saw an error is that you were editing a section, and the complete reference information was located outside of that section. If you check the ref on the whole page, you'll see it isn't broken. I hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2017 (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.
TRM has decided to show up and say that he's entitled to revert me whenever the hell he likes and I'm not allowed to discuss those reverts. That's not cricket. If he doesn't want to talk to him, he should pledge to not revert me anywhere. This is what I don't like about TRM: he insists that any interaction with anyone always happen on his terms, that he is allowed to do whatever he wants and no one, ever, is allowed to question him. pbp21:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, thanks for your calm input earlier. As you are no doubt aware, what has been written above is incorrect. Sorry for the ongoing disruption. Perhaps if this continues we should get an IBAN organised. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2017 (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.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
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.
A dear friend is using "reword" !votes there in an RfC (some of which are very strongly worded against his preferred edit) as meaning that his wording has "overwhelming consensus" yet again. In fact, he is trying to self-close the RfC in favor of his position. You might wish to take a look, as a full month has passed again and his position as to what "overwhelming consensus" means has not appeared to yet be altered. Collect (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to make another poor block? Perhaps you should request that a different admin watch the article, you seem to be biased and motivated by other editors goading you into action. I am having serious doubts about your neutrality and performance as an admin. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at your edits, this slightly worries me. Surely after two blocks, you must be beginning to realise that in cases of BLP, where there is dispute or doubt, the default is to leave it out, not to include it? --John (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we won't agree on what is dubious BLP material and what isn't. To me your "dubious material" is my "cited and notable content", but don't let this worry you, I'm on the talk page discussing the content, rather than jumping in and adding content to the article. I apologize, I should credit you with a little common sense, despite Collect coming here and begging you to keep an eye on me, I guess you are fully aware of his block history, disruptive history on BLP issues, topic bans, interaction bans, arbitration enforcement sanctions, etc etc and take that into account when he complains about other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- the issue here is WP:BLP. If you wish to discuss my editing history, then I suggest this is the worst place to do so. I have well over 40,000 edits now - and I rather think John knows my positions on biographies of living persons fairly well. Talk pages are not where ad hominem attacks ought to be made. Collect (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you both that I look at each case on its merits. I appreciate the calm and reasonable tone you are both taking. --John (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collect I'm discussing your motivation in coming here looking for sanctions against me, I wouldn't have been taking part in this discussion if you hadn't come here looking for a friendly admin to block me. Yet again, your battleground approach to Wikipedia is obvious to see and a highly disruptive influence. That's why your prior block history is highly relevant and the fact that you consider this to be "the worst place to do so", isn't something I agree with. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2017 (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.
I'd hoped that this was enough for someone to check the history of the only article they've edited and see if it had just a few hours earlier been vandalized by a blocked account by nearly the same name. When I said "obvious" I was being literal. GMGtalk01:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.
Hi John, I'm trying to clarify what "the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers" means when it comes to templates. If an IP comes along and makes an edit that would break a template already under PCPP, am I correct in assuming it won't go live unless/until their edit is confirmed? ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly being WP:FAR coordinator means that I can't vote on Featured Article Removal candidates. If you saw any there that gave you the slightest interest in commenting and you could opine keep or delist that would be really helpful. Just trying to get it moving and do some spring cleaning before the New Year...Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah..if I could get just a few extra sets of eyes every so often (even once every month or so), it'd make a huge difference. The pace Is glacial. I used to be loth to strip articles of stars but now recognise that all the FA star means is best quality and am more ready to demote if there is not consensus to keep. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks ago, you said you'd finished the first pass of copyediting on the article. You haven't done anything on the article in a while, so I decided to check if you still intend to. Waiting for the job to be done is fine by me; however, you said just recently you were busy and I just want to make sure this task won't accidentally be overlooked and check if you actually had completed what you wanted by then and simply forgot to mention that.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking good, R8R, I think, and is almost ready. I suggest coalescing the two separate sections which discuss thorium's past and potential future use as a nuclear fuel. Having two overlapping sections is unhelpful, and I can't see any other good way of solving it. If you agree this is worth a try, should we merge up the page or down? My feeling is we should merge up. I've run out of time now tonight but we can perhaps finish this tomorrow. --John (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am initially skeptical about this but open-minded in general. I don't yet think this will work: The nuclear part of thorium's history is only noticeable because there was little going on with the element otherwise, that's all. The nuclear perspectives, however, are tremendous (even though questionable). Also, if we merge up, we have essentially a short subsection endeavor a long section; I am initially skeptical about this as well. If we merge down, we lose a part of the element's history. However, while I don't think this will work, I am open to you proving me wrong. So, sure, a try is very welcome.
I've done that, and I tentatively think it is better. There isn't a huge saving in space (really only a couple of sentences were duplicated) but I think it looks better-organised now. --John (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked it, and I'm begging to differ. The History section used to consist of short, 1-2 paras long subsections, and now there is one that takes more then a whole screen. I've taken a moment to think why and I think that the technical part doesn't belong in an overview discussion of history such as ours. (Of the recent stories, you've seen me rewrite the History section of aluminium. As important as the Hall--Heroult process is, I didn't describe it in detail because this is not the material for this section; this will go to Production section. I've checked if it was any different this time with thorium, and I think not.) Watching this, I've come to think history standalone as a listing of events and possibly explanations of what events/considerations led to them.
We can ask for a third opinion from Double sharp, the other major author of this article, if I haven't convinced you (we haven't discussed the matter before so it is possible that they'll join your position). I think this will be good regardless so I will, but I wouldn't want you to be surprised so letting you know beforehand.--R8R (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm with R8R this time. To me, discussion of the technical details of Th as a nuclear power source belongs in applications, not in history; the history should just contain discussion of when people started trying to use it as such. I mean, now the applications section contains no mention of Th in nuclear energy at all, which seems a bit off to me. If it has to be in only one place, I think applications is better than history; after all, it's still not used as the main fuel source anywhere yet. Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I did say it was tentative. Do you have a better solution? Because I don't think the option of having two overlapping sections is a good one either. --John (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have given it a thought and I think it's conceptually okay as long as we cover different aspects of the problem (chronology of past events vs. the general principle of work). Different aspects of the general story of an element often overlap to some extent. For instance, lead is known since since antiquity (a history aspect) because it is easily extracted from its ores (a chemistry aspect). The general idea of such a duplication, as you say, is that this nuclear energy idea is a potential use of thorium, and uses go after history even if repeating them (see fluorine: the use for uranium separation is both in History and in Applications). Basically, same here. This nuclear energy has been given so much space because it is very ambitious and because all other uses are vanishing anyway.
It does make sense, of course. But I may still think it is clumsy to have stuff spread over two sections like that. Let me think about it some more. --John (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were involved earlier on en-wiki with this user I inform you of sockpuppet misuse of a company with us on nl-wiki see here. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC) nl-wiki admin[reply]
Hello again, John ! List european countries and cities in all languages (a perhaps stupid chosen title, and my knowledge of table-syntax is rather limited..) But is the list/table of Encyclopedic value ? Or is it too much of a Dictionary ?
Unlike last time, I don't fear this will become a hornets nest as well. So if possible, and as no patroler even have had a look for 2 days, could you perhaps give me an advise on this ? Adding every new language takes more and more time. I'm only asking you as experienced Wikipedian, and any advice stays here. Boeing720 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is interesting but as you say it might be seen as more of a dictionary topic than an encyclopedia one. At least fix the capitalisation in the title, please. --John (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A trouble is, that I'm extremely bad with Wiki syntax. Meaning I really don't know how to change a title. The title is also horribly wrong, and I should have used an other title. Nevertheless, as I added a link to two language related articles, a deletion proposal came up at once. I have to live with that. It will presumably be deleted. But if so, I want it to be deleted for the correct reasons. (there is no OR involved, and the chosen cities are Capitals or such cities that are spelled differently between languages, they are not randomly chosen) I'm sorry for the title in general, as well for its lack of Capitals where they should have been. As it now is a matter of deletion proposal, I think there is not much current reason to change the title. However, if we have a page explaining how to change a title, I would be grateful for a link. Thanks again ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look and I must admit that's a pretty firm consensus building there that your article is inherently unencyclopedic. I'd probably userfy it. That way you at least have it for your own reference. For your future information, there's a "Move" tab on (almost) every page you see as a logged-in user. If you click on that, it allows you to move any article to any title that is not already occupied. I don't recommend trying it on this article, as I think it's on the way out anyway, and as you can imagine there are strict rules about when you can and can't move things. But if you ever again write an article then realise it's at the wrong title, this is how you change it. --John (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. I have saved your "move comment" for the future, it doesn't look too difficult. (And I realise not to use that tool without bringing it up at a talk-page) What's "userfy" ?Boeing720 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for all of this - advice, information, the suggestion at the AfC, and now for the link, etc, etc. I strongly objected to OR and "random", but I can most certainly live with this, and also if it had been deleted (but not for intentional OR or similar reasons), the title was horrific- yes and sorry for that, but there was a structure, although perhaps not quite obvious from scratch. Many thanks yet again, John ! Life goes on. Boeing720 (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Would you be willing to copy edit the article which was promoted to GA at the beginning of this year. I just want to make sure that its quality is maintained. I do understand that you're busy so take as long as you need of course. Best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copy edits so far. I have a question concerning one of the sentences in the "thank you very much" section. I could be wrong but I'm not sure if that is correct: "a music video surrounded by thirty nude extras". what do you think? ArturSik (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, the best edits we made were yours, prompted by my comments. Johansson is reluctant to discuss her personal life, saying, "It's nice to have everybody not know your business." was really needing removed. I also want to praise this edit by SNUGGUMS which sorted out a major infelicity in the lead which none of us had noticed. If we're giving out Barnstars, surely that deserves one? Finally, are you ok with losing the two extra images? and I think this post-FAC tweak should be my last edit for a while. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Snuggums was helpful during the expansion; I left a note in Sep/Oct on his talk thanking him for his edits. Coming to the images, I was initially surprised by their removal. It's not something I'd fight over, though it would have been nice if we kept them. FrB.TG (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought TriiipleThreat made a reasonable point about them. You made a general point about it being ok to have images of people who aren't the subject of the article, which nobody would dispute. Flyer22 Reborn didn't seem to mind removing them. The article has plenty of images in my opinion. Of course it's something we could discuss in article talk if you like. --John (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
So I saw your request at WikiProject:Resource Exchange - Resource Request about James Thrower. I don't know if this helps you, but religious studies author Reza Aslan mentioned Thrower's work in an interview.[8] Julian Baggini also mentioned Thrower's work here[9]. You can find another brief mention of Thrower's work here[10]. Thrower also wrote "Essays in Religious Studies for Andrew Walls"(1986) and this another book[11]. I hope you can find something useful there. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hi John, hope you’re keeping well. Can you advise re a slow burn edit war which seems to be from the same person, operating from different IP address’s? [12]. I’ve been having a problem with the same person now for a few months who keeps unilaterally reverting edits to do with irrelevant infoboxes. As per the above, I’ve been trying to improve Wilkie Bard but my attempts are being disrupted by this person. It doesn’t satisfy 3RR yet, and ANI would be a cauldron of calamity and troll’s day out. There is also not enough evidence for an SPI, although you don’t have to be Clouseau to work out that it’s the same person. Best regards CassiantoTalk23:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like or dislike infoboxes, editing to restore or remove them repeatedly is likely to lead to a block as it isn't one of the defences we accept for edit warring. Hence my advice to take it to article talk. --John (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you revisit BrillLyle's talk page. I know, you know, I've disengaged, as you thanked me, but since this, BrillLyle has come back with this comment with regards to my private life. I'm sure you can appreciate, I take my privacy very seriously and this slur is one thing that cuts too deep. I do not appreciate the despicable assertion that just because I have an issue with this infobox, I must have issues in real life. It's disgusting and way too private. The IP hopper troll is also back and keeps putting this comment back on the talk page. Please could this be revdeld too. CassiantoTalk19:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I see that he is now in prep, but with the (quirky) hook I didn't like too much. If you are comfortable with it, I'll leave it as is, because it may not really matter what makes people curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather an arcane system they use over there, it took me a while to find it. It currently reads ... that Harold Strachan has painted pictures, written books, made bombs, served two prison sentences, and completed an ultramarathon? which I think I am fine with. Thanks a million for your help; don't hesitate if there's anything I can do for you in return. --John (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look at "what links here". The hook doesn't say a word about SA, but perhaps that will even attract more, who knows. I liked your unbiased guidance for Wilkie Bard. You might take a look at Alfonso und Estrella. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harold Strachan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Harold Strachan has painted pictures, written books, made bombs, served two prison sentences, and completed an ultramarathon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Strachan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Harold Strachan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Your RfC: Butler is one of the articles I avoid (see talk, 2016), so I will be of no help for the RfC, sorry. Today I found a case of a man called just by his given name, - I changed it, of course. Wonderful singer whom I had the pleasure of hearing yesterday, but that article needs work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible business. Hey, if you outlive me, can you make sure nobody puts a "This Wikipedian is deceased. His user page is preserved here in his memory." on me? "Deceased" is one of the words I really hate here. Just say "dead", please. --John (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you better put that on your talk, on top, where they'd place the template, rather than relying on me outliving you. I outlived a great model, who left us much work not yet done. But at least he didn't leave this place by blocking himself (to explain "sorest"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, John, why do you support the rule? I have seen your name in a few past discussions and either haven't ruled that out or if I have, I've forgotten the reason.--R8R (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the rule because
a) It doesn't matter. One spelling is as good as the other.
b) If we didn't have such a rule we'd have messy and distracting disagreement in articles.
I don't agree with but understand a) and c). I don't quite understand b), though: are you okay with WP:ENGVAR then, since it basically allows such disagreement in all non-country related articles? If so, what's the difference?--R8R (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR is in the same vein as ALUM though. Spelling doesn't matter, a long as it is consistent. I support ALUM for the same reasons I support ENGVAR; it prevents silly arguments about whether color or colour is "better" (both are fine) and allows us to get on with more interesting things. For a really serious one, over which people have actually died, see Derry/Londonderry name dispute and WP:DERRY.--John (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see how ENGVAR prevents such arguments over which spelling is better and I agree with this idea. I don't, however, understand, how ALUM and ENGVAR are alike on this one. ALUM seems to contradict the idea: it explicitly says that there is one spelling chosen by an important authority and that therefore we should follow this supreme spelling (it is not said explicitly that the spelling is supreme but one easily could read it this way. I did read it so when I first encountered the rule. That is one reason I don't like it).
I've got another question yet to formulate. The Derry dispute seems not quite like what we have because that one appears to involve politics and nationalism while this one is exclusively about spelling.--R8R (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the authority part which is important though. It just avoids a lot of silly nationalistic arguments which distract from our purpose. A lot of older British chemists still use sulphur, but many use sulfur. American chemists use aluminum but the rest of the world uses aluminium. Nobody cares very much about caesium. In this case the spelling opposition coincides largely with nationalism. It makes much more sense just to standardise on sulfur, aluminium, and get on with our lives. --John (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've highlighted the point that interests me most. You say, "American chemists use aluminum but the rest of the world uses aluminium." Also only Americans use color and the rest of the world uses colour. What is the difference between "we need to standardize on aluminium" and "both color and colour are fine and we don't need to standardize (which is what ENGVAR says)"?
The only potential reason I was able to conclude from what you've said is that it's already the solution we have so we can have it because we already do have a solution, perfect or not, as it doesn't really matter anyway. Then (please note that I really really really don't mean to be rude here) why is that of such interest for you to have a position in the first place? If there are better things to do, why do you keep such a close track of it and not concentrate on more interesting things as it appears to me that you'll be good with any solution as long as it's a recognized solution? (I really hope you see I am not at all trying to be offensive and am sorry if it seems otherwise, I just genuinely don't entirely understand your motivation.)--R8R (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the least annoyed or offended by your questions. The difference between colour and aluminium is that the latter can be considered "correct" in any geographical context, as it's a chemistry word, whereas the former would be "incorrect" in American usage. I have better things to do than as an admin mediating or enforcing the hundreds of disputes that would ensue if we didn't have this rule. The time spent defending the successful longstanding compromise is time well invested. As a chemist I am interested in nomenclature, so the question interested me. What wouldn't interest me would be constant bickering over which version is "correct", when they both are. Think of it as an extension of the principle by which an element like iron has the symbol Fe regardless of whether the locals call it "iron", "Eisen", "fer" or "железо". Make sense? --John (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, what bothers me here is the degree of arbitrariness by which you may consider aluminium correct in American usage. American dictionaries I know use aluminum. This is not even well accepted among American chemists: the American Chemical Society and PubMed use one spelling, and it's aluminum. Lastly, even IUPAC acknowledges the -um spelling. This is important. I can imagine this was not the case when they ruled that Nb should be called niobium (not columbium) and W should be called tungsten (not wolfram). This is not even presently the case with S being exclusively sulfur (not sulphur). American chemists commonly use aluminum in IUPAC's internal publications and even IUPAC's external publications may use both spellings. That is why per styling reasons alone, it is hard for me to see sticking to one spelling justified if IUPAC, the organization whose style we are said to be following, allows both.
I'm having trouble trying to think the Fe example is relevant. A single symbol despite different names is very different from a single name despite different names. The former does not affect the alternatives; the latter does.
What's interesting is the new (for me) idea of that this is a compromise that could prevent further disputes. I'd love to ask some questions about it. Most important of them is, why is ALUM better at preventing disputes than ENGVAR? It would seem to me that both would work equally fine. Second, are we really talking about hundreds of disputes about spellings of these three elements? It may have been the case in 2004 (don't know yet; will check) but it doesn't look like that today and then again, you just have a rule to point at. Third, on a brief check, a predecessor of ENGVAR did exist in 2004 but I have no knowledge of if rules were actually abided as strictly as they are today. That old rule looks like a piece of advice rather than an actual rule so I could see people assuming no hurt in not following it. This wouldn't be the case today.--R8R (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and I don't disagree with anything you say. I have lived and worked in the States. If you think of it as a management problem rather than as one of nomenclature, you'll maybe understand my perspective better. Are you familiar with the Bikeshed problem? Wikipedia in reality has very few stern and inflexible "rules" (BLP, COPYVIO, NPA...?) and most things can be worked around. This agreement has kept the peace for a long time and I don't think you'll find much appetite to change it to address a perceived problem of ... what exactly? Vsmith, you were in on this from the beginning, do you want to add anything? --John (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed trying to look from the management perspective. I'm still having trouble finding what advantage ALUM brings today. If ALUM was repealed and ENGVAR took over, what disadvantage would that bring? I can't find good reasons to keep the rule apart from people's general conservatism but I'm still trying.
I also find that the peace we are talking about is not particularly great. Which is why it was discussed over and over and over throughout the years after it was accepted. (Why none of those discussions resulted in a change is a different matter. Often it is because of invalid reasoning, often because of improper way to attempt the change. Maybe there actually were great problems in 2004 and they were recent enough in some of those discussions.) I assume that people are no longer arguing because they like the rule but rather because it has been argued over and over so many times it would take quite an effort to stand a chance of succeeding. Very very few readers leave messages at talk pages at all and essentially none will now that they are meant to do that in a special reservation. That does not mean they are fine with our decisions. While both "Derry" and "Londonderry" are probably fine in a Northern Irish context or any context, actually, "aluminium" is strange in an American context.--R8R (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe: why fix what ain't broke :) And yes, aluminium is "strange" (in '04 I was a chemistry teacher in the Ozarks), but the solution worked and I got used to the weird spelling ... and that "ae" in caesium - alien. Vsmith (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsmith: Why ain't it broke? It inserts a word in a spelling unusual (if not unknown to many) to the general American reader to an American text. That's a problem. I don't see why anyone has to get used to a spelling we use; it must come naturally. It appears to me that if it worked, then only poorly: the summary length of discussions since its implementation shows that. You were there in 2004 so you may know: since you said it worked then, why did MoS not? I am genuinely interested about this. I see that MoS back in 2004 contained a line about that the original national variety should be retained.--R8R (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I may answer although the question was not addressed to me; most of our target audience are not American. To an Indian or a South African, "aluminum" is going to look like a typo. To older people from Britain or New Zealand, "sulfur" is going to look weird. The spirit of ALUM and of ENGVAR is to ensure equality of esteem, equality of recognition to the two main spelling dialects of our language. In both cases, the policy recommends not changing spelling arbitrarily from one version to the other and that is the important thing to hang onto here. --John (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, I did not mean that at all. What I meant was that in a text written in AmE, it makes most sense to use the words common to AmE. Just like it is common to use words common to the British in texts written in BrE, words common to the Indians and South Africans in texts written in Indian English and South African English and so on. It would make perfect sense to use one spelling common to both AmE and BrE but there is none and what's worse, it looks like we're trying to invent one. I suspect there may be something in how this rule prevented something back in 2004 to see if those problems are applicable to the present situation but I don't yet see what it was. I'd love to learn that.--R8R (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (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.
Having reviewed your block from two months ago, it was richly deserved and there is definitely nothing to apologise for. --John (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still do not understand the situation and you haven't asked any questions IIRC. One bad block can do more damage than a hundred justified blocks can prevent. Admins who make mistakes rarely learn from them, because it is so much easier to block and ignore than it is to communicate and because there is no oversight. If simply reading is not enough to understand what happened and why then that probably requires you to communicate. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you. If you have a question about your block, you may ask it. If you wish to make generalised philosophical points, I may or may not read them and I probably won't respond. --John (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you instead. If you, in the future, see a long term good faith editor doing something you do not understand it is probably wise to ask them what is going on. You are not allowed to use the block button to punish those you dislike, and you are only allowed to use the blockbutton to protect the encyclopedia or its users (e.g. WP:SUICIDE). If you do not understand a situation (even after reading everything related to it) then it is wise to ask questions or ignore it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2017 (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.
You can use a search engine to find sourced material. Yes, I'm an administrator. I don't see any recent substantive edits from you, do you edit from different IPs? What is it you want to help with? I see you are interested in shopping malls; I think there is a project you could ask. --John (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk13:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.
I hope I'm not annoying you too much with this article. I only feel obliged to tell you that the FAC is finally on -- and I'm sorry for having forgotten to tell you that earlier. I'm very grateful for your copyedit.--R8R (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
I'll be travelling for probably the next week and a half, and will have intermittent Internet access. Please excuse me. Have a good holiday, everyone. --John (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2018 will be safe, successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I saw your offer to help in the Editor Assistance area. I'm hoping that you can give me a bit of guidance relating to a friend's BLP that's been flagged. He asked me if I could help resolve the issues that caused an editor to dispute the neutrality of the article, among other things.
I asked the editor to explain exactly what he did not like in the article, and he did so. I then worked with my friend to address each point and asked for the editor's opinion whether my suggested edits fixed the problem. That was in August, and I've heard nothing from him. I asked again. Nothing. I asked if there was another editor who might be able to respond. Nothing. I created an RfC, and have got no nibbles. I then posted a request on the BLP Noticeboard and have heard nothing.
Therefore the resolution is dead in the water. I'm a Wikipedia newcomer and want to be careful about all the rules. I have disclosed my NCOI concerning my friend from the beginning. I therefore created a sandbox version of his article with all my suggested fixes incorporated. I just feel like something's not working properly when an individual can be flagged, efforts are made to fix the issues, and they're met with zero response for months. I would very much appreciate your advice on what process I should now follow. If you're so inclined and have a moment to look at my sandboxed version, do you see any issues that would prevent the flags from being removed? There's a LOT about Wikipedia that I don't know, and appreciate the help of experienced people. Thanks very much in advance for your advice! Copywriter12 (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, Given how many edits you've made and how in demand you are, I realize that I may be pretty far back in the queue for your attention. I thought I'd ping you to get your advice when you do have a moment. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to help out a buddy whose BLP has been flagged by another editor. I sure would appreciate your thoughts about the best way to address these issues. I've made proposed edits for every single issue that the editor raised, but I've heard nothing so I'm in this limbo currently. Thanks in advance for either your editorial help or your advice about the next steps I should take. Copywriter12 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insisting on using the phrase "committed suicide" demeans and insults those who are driven to attempt to kill themselves. You really still don't get it, eh? --John (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The terminology was correct back then, as were words like "spastic", which you couldn't get away with saying today, but was widely used for years, such as here. We cannot pretend that terms like this didn't exist, because they did. No matter how much you evidently want to, you cannot rewrite the history books. You don't need me to tell you how much language changes as the years roll by; more and more words, that were widely used at one stage, are consigned, for whatever reason, to the vaults of history. It is not for you or I to determine what is morally right on Wikipedia, or to take offence on behalf of others, who may or may not take offence at all. Now, can you point out where I have been demeaning in my linked comment above? CassiantoTalk22:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to explain this to you if you are genuinely unable to accept that language changes over time. This is something that most people learn about in early secondary school. We no longer call Jewish people kikes, though at one time it was common. We no longer call black people niggers, though at one time it was common. We no longer call gay people faggots, though at one time it was common. Those of us who know something of the subject no longer use the phrase "committed suicide" for similar reasons to not saying "kike", "nigger" and "faggot"; because it is hurtful to a discriminated and vulnerable minority, perpetuates intolerance, and is easily replaceable by a more descriptive and more neutral term. I am not sure why you are so desperate to hold on to this one little phrase; I can only assume you are still upset by being wrong over the article where you held out for calling an adult woman by her first name throughout, like a pet or a child. I'm a great fan of Alan Partridge, and I can imagine you sitting there muttering "political correctness gone crazy". But Alan Partridge was comedy, and this is real life. These language choices hurt real people; it's a serious subject and you should let go of your hurt. We all make mistakes, and it makes you more human if you can admit to it. (ec) I see you've edited your comment to reflect that you do understand that language changes. Good. Would you hold out for using "spastic" or "mongoloid" on a modern article? I think you would not but are just being stubborn. Let it go. --John (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a period article about an event in 1909. The very excellent Life on Mars featured a politically incorrect misogynist who belittled colleagues and who corruptly went about his job. Not acceptable now, but Hunt's language was indicative of someone in a job like that in that era. You may hate that, but that was how it was and it's important that that is portrayed to give a sense of realism. We should not be censored. CassiantoTalk23:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, you strike me a person who is right 99.9^ of the time, but this is one of those 0.1% of the times - John is ok people, and somebody I have known and worked with over years, and would vouch for. I'd let this lie; ye are, in all other other thing, utterly on the same side. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I loved that show! I thought the sequel was disappointing though. Your stance is becoming more understandable to me now, but I still don't agree with you. Our article on Nelson Mandela doesn't and shouldn't call him a kaffir, although that is how many would have referred to him during most of his lifetime. --John (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, because I don't agree with you either; but hey, let's agree to disagree, shall we? I understand you may not like the term, but I hope you can at least appreciate that the eagerness to "strong oppose" an otherwise excellent article, so soon after the feud on Josephine Butler, might have come across to some as a little churlish and bitter, even though it perhaps wasn't intended as such. It was this I was most annoyed about. A discussion first under a "Comment" header, with an eventual "oppose" later, should things not have sorted themselves out, would've come across as a lot less vindictive. None of this was ever meant personally. CassiantoTalk00:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know that's where it came from. I just don't think in terms of "feuds" and I kind of pity those who do. As I already said once or twice, my only agenda comes from the fact that getting something dodgy through at FAC has been used at Josephine Butler as a justification for not changing it even when it is obviously wrong later on. As long as we avoid that we should be fine. --John (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where John is coming from, and how certain words might imply "things" we might otherwise not associate some of our loved ones with. I'm far from politically correct, but ask Cassianto to concede to a rewording in this instance. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An idea, if I may: In an article I recently wrote the term "pestilenzisch Gift entreißen" came up, the poet's description of his intentions, written in the 17th century, let's translate that as "wrest the poison of pestilence [from them]". Now I could write that he had this intention, by using quotation marks, but I could not write matter-of-factly: "He wrested the poison of pestilence from them". By this logic, I would try to avoid "committed suicide" unless clearly marked - by quotation marks or other means - as the language of a former period. She didn't commit a crime by today's standards, even if it was one at the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice suggestion, Gerda, and would improve the article. It's unlikely to succeed on this occasion as Cassianto has been forthright enough to admit that he views this as part of a "feud" with me over language, which also encompasses his embarrassing faux pas at Talk:Josephine Butler. So sad. Maybe after the holiday season we can revisit it again. --John (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It very nearly was a feud, but I have better things to do than argue with you. Listen, we can carry it on if you like, or you could be an adult and put it behind you, just like I have. Feel free to continue with this sanctimonious attitude if you like, but I will take no more part in it. CassiantoTalk20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the line when older language is not suitable for 21st century encyclopedic writing? - It's hard for me to tell what language is obviously so dated that it can only be quoted but not used in a factual sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Old language which was acceptable in the day, but not now, should always be used when writing about that period, regardless of political correctness. oh, and faux pas or no faux pas, this existed when society didn't know what to do people with mental health problems. CassiantoTalk22:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the difference between "He described his intentions as wanting to 'wrest the poison of pestilence from them'" and me stating "He wrested the poison of pestilence from them"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, this isn't about language. Cassianto isn't nearly that stupid; he understands perfectly well why this is sub-standard. It's about a "feud"; Cassianto hates being wrong, and who doesn't? There is nothing else to be said about it for now. Our next chance to put this right might be at TFA or FAR. Until then, enjoy the holidays. --John (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Year's resolution: ask myself more often "is this about language?" - This is about images: Happy 2018, to you, Ceoil and Cassianto, and all, - we are all human beings, in a precious fragile environment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda, and the same to you. And thanks Cassianto for the banter, and especially for this hilarious quote: Old language which was acceptable in the day, but not now, should always be used when writing about that period, regardless of political correctness. I'll see you down at Nelson Mandela, changing the language to kaffir throughout. If you tell 'em that, I'm sure it'll be fine. Ceoil, see you in the New Year, and we will improve the Clash. --John (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you, and likewise. I'm a right grumpy bastard sometimes and I'm sorry for whatever it was I said to piss you off. I don't hold a grudge either and life's just too fucking short. I found all my Clash books recently and I seem to recall we once talked about improving Cut the Crap. If we're both still casting a shadow in early 2018, that might be a thing to look at. --John (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take you grumpiness and raise you ten. I still think "This is England" is up there along with "We are the Clash". Even as a hardcore die in the wool punk more inclined towards Steve Albini and late 80s noise rock...strong melodies are not to be sniffed at. Good to hear from you too, John. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are sources there to support that. Let's look at that in January. Still got Hogmanay to negotiate first. --John (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Maybe you still know me from the FAC of the article above some time ago. I would love to see that article reach FA status sometime in the future; would you have time to work with me on Unlocked a bit? Maybe you can list some issues you found on its talk page? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
Template:Toomanyflags has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs)
Boeing720 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Vladimov#/media/File:Georgi_Vladimov.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg)
,
_(14775718853).jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
