User talk:John/Archive 2018

Thanks

Thanks for your updates on John Worboys. Fences&Windows 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks to you for your work on it. John (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit for Borodino-class battlecruiser

I'd like to request a good copy/prose edit for Borodino-class battlecruiser whenever you get a chance. Many years ago, it had a very contentious FAC, but I've recently revised it in light of the comments and am considering resubmitting it. However, I think that I'm probably still too close to my own writing and would like a fresh pair of eyes to see what issues remain. You've edited a few of my articles before and I've always appreciated your work, even if I might not have agreed with every change. So I'm hoping that you've got the time to tackle this one and that I've not left much work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, I really appreciate it. I have recently returned from travelling over the holidays and have acquired a backlog. I promise to look at it in the next week, will that do? --John (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That will be fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt editing. Can I assume that you have no further edits to make?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

12 years of editing

Joining the choir, good to know you! ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I am glad to know you too Gerda, and glad to be part of a community which remembers my "birthday". --John (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Rebirthing can be fun! Although you may sometimes feel like you want to scream. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Impact

Impact

Thank you for your impact
writing about a freedom fighter

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! That's appreciated, Gerda. --John (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome! I received it from Dreadstar. To his memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed Dreadstar's talk, thinking that he also would have preferred "died" to "deceased", and so do I. I don't know exactly when he died but learned about it two years ago, - still remember the shock. He always seemed so young to me, and full of energy! I had just expanded a Bach cantata then which mentions heart ache in the title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Today, I turned to "Out of the deep". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sehr schön, beide. --John (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

hi, tanks

Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.

Let's put this article on the air.

https://exame.abril.com.br/blog/instituto-millenium/no-mercado-de-acoes-o-maior-erro-e-querer-dinheiro-pra-amanha/

https://financenews.com.br/2017/09/em-2018-teremos-uma-entrada-grande-de-chineses-e-americanos-no-brasil/

http://blog.maxieduca.com.br/bolsa-valores-empreendedorismo/

http://www.folhadelondrina.com.br/economia/otimismo-chega-ao-mercado-de-fusoes-e-aquisicoes-993518.html

http://www.matogrossoeconomico.com.br/noticias/milionario-brasileiro-vai-investir-r-10-milhoes-em-startups-do-agronegocio/16519

http://www.jornalpontagrossa.com/2017/10/brasil-milionario-paranaense-esta.html

http://abvcap.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-imprensa.aspx?c=pt-BR&id=3841

http://www.jornalmeuparana.com/portal/ver_noticia.php?ver=14278

http://www.infomoney.com.br/blogs/investimentos/alem-do-dinheiro/post/7099448/empreender-sonho-possivel

http://thebrazilianfinancial.com/entrevista/

https://www.jornalempresariall.com.br/noticias/gerais/milionario-paranaense-vai-investir-r10-milhoes-em-startups-do-agronegocio

https://www.folhageral.com/empresas-e-negocios/2017/12/investidor-milionario-cria-maior-empresa-de-relacoes-com-investidores-da-america-latina/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have too much on just now to take this on. Sorry. --John (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

FAC

Hi. I was wondering if you could provide some comments on my FAC Margaret (singer). Best. ArturSik (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look. --John (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you:) ArturSik (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

• News and notes: Communication is key

• In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media

• Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics

• Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

• Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers

• Humour: Why don't we have an article about _________?

• Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018

• Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harold Strachan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Not guilty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

Call of the Wild

Precious six years

... for improving article quality in January 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you too Gerda for the valuable work that you do. --John (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like I should give one to myself ;) - will do. I guess, during the last days, it must be hundred thank-you-clicks I didn't do ;) - Did you know The Call of the Wild? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Under a different name, yes. --John (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This name matches my images best, and the layout is clear, but I prefer that truth was apparent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Strange inline refs

Hello John ! I've tried at the article, but as I once wrote a stub about United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation - which now has grown quite a lot. I have earlier removed long lists which lacked sources, which were "unencyclopedic", also according to others. Now strange inline refs have appeared "(sup)8(/sup)" I've substituted the brackets with parenthesis; number 8 could just as well had been any number. But this syntax begins with the eighth inline ref, first headline after the lead. They began with this edit, I was informed. I'm not certain, but suspect they are not valid at all. Suggestions ? Anyone else I ought to ask instead ? There's no way (I have been able to) see what these "refs" actually are. Phony ones ? And if I'm correct, I find this to be far worse than not giving any at all. Sorry for having bothered you, and I may be wrong. Boeing720 (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I could remove them, and replace them with CNs myself. But can they be a manner to make a new kind of "inlining" ? Boeing720 (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid your suspicions are right. These are not valid refs. --John (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's too bad. And sad. I'm unfamiliar with such things. Although I'm not really for hard punishments, this is, in my opinion very UnWikipedian. Perhaps asking him/her why this has been done - to begin with, might be an idea !? Depending on reply and other contributions, very firm and formal warning may be called for. Putting "Citation Needed" at every phony-inlinerefs , and presumably elsewhere as well - is one idea. Deleting all but the lead is another. Do you wish me to do something ? I'll be happy to assist. Boeing720 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've already taken care of it. --John (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(here was a brief edit-confilct) I've now seen the article part of the problem is solved. Well done ! Thanks ! This is actually the second time a large part of that article has been deleted. The first time, I deleted a lot of lists, which were both unsupported and very obviously unencyclopedic material, though "no cheating" like this, then. Boeing720 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

• Op-ed: Do editors have the right to be forgotten?

• Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible

• Recent research: Automated Q&A from Wikipedia articles; Who succeeds in talk page discussions?

• Blog: New monthly dataset shows where people fall into Wikipedia rabbit holes

• Interview: Interview with The Rambling Man, Wikipedia's top contributor of Featured Lists

• Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles

• Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative

• Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues

• In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations

• Humour: You really are in Wonderland

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification

Kindly check out discussion at User talk:Dlohcierekim#Ayurveda. Anmolbhat (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok. --John (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking rescinding the current rules and applying a general 1RR restriction might be appropriate. There's also the "Consensus required" restriction that is getting a lot of use these days. See for instance Template:American_politics_AE. ~Awilley (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I think a strict civility enforcement is essential as well. If I recall correctly, name-calling was a problem last time round. Is there evidence that the existing enforcement is causing problems? --John (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RoyalFlashPoster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RoyalFlashPoster.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad a better file has been found. --John (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Margaret

Hey. I was going through the whole article one more time and in the Monkey Business section where she talks about how she was involved more in the creative process of the album I thought that maybe I would expand on it, so I've added a sentence on how she was involved more: "Monkey Business was released in June 2017 and peaked at number 8 in Poland.[5]. Margaret described the album as "versatile" and has said that she had more artistic control over its creative process than with her debut album.[6][7] She recalled that this time she was in charge whereas with Add the Blonde she listened to and took advice from her producers." What do you think ? Does that make sense? ArturSik (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That absolutely makes sense. If I may say so, I enjoyed working with you to improve and quality-assure your article. --John (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a pleasure working with you and the article looks so much better now. Thank you. ArturSik (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Stretford

Thanks for your fixes. I wondered why there was a mini-flurry of edits, as it had slipped my mind that it would be appearing on the main page from midnight. In my mind, Tuesday starts when I get up tomorrow morning, it's still Monday evening yet. Eric Corbett 00:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I'm burning the midnight oil here a bit. Working late. Great article by the way. --John (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Agh!....

For your viewing "pleasure"... German-occupied Europe. What is it with people and the need to strew little blobs of color all over everything? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's bloody ugly with all the flags. However this sort of thing is a recognised use of flags. What is Finland doing there? John (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to bet it's because of the Lapland War... I'm not sure that really counts though. But, since I'm already in enough "discussion" at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp and Talk:Skowronek (horse) that I'm not willing to jump into yet another fire... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating, thank you. --John (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Bullying and stalking been going on for approx a decade

Hi John. Please have a look a my talk page. This User has been stalking me for very many years now on Wikipedia. It brings the entire project into disrepute. Mais oui! (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've had a word. Sorry you've had this experience. --John (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry for the silence. I have been working nights, and am just about to nip to bed for some well-earned rest. BrownHairedGirl pinged me about a message she put on Tim’s Talk page, which is just as well, as I removed it from my Watchlist years ago. To cut a very, very, very long story short: I give in.

I could spend half a day of my life researching the comprehensive and well-executed stealth bullying, stalking and POV campaign inflicted on me by User:Tim! but I have decided not to. He wins. He has achieved his goal of removing me from Wikipedia. He has achieved his goal of assisting to scare off literally hundreds of competent and enthusiastic Scottish Wikipedians. And he will shortly achieve his long-cherished goal of removing all England-, Scotland- and Wales-related categories from the countries and nations categories.

I have seen rogue Admins before here, but Tim! really is in a superclass of his own. To persist in his persecution for a decade, seemingly without anybody but me giving a damn, is truly outstanding, and worthy an Olympic gold in sculduggery. I am genuinely impressed that someone can hate me, and my nation, so much to keep up the raw wrath of spite and hatred for an entire decade. I long suspected that the Tim! account was in fact a tool used by a group of people, perhaps associated with a British Nationalist or Ulster Loyalist organisation, but while there is no doubt that Tim! does try to coordinate such elements, the account itself is far, far too consistent, over too long a period, to be a group tool. We are looking at one highly intelligent, but deeply, deeply troubled and unhappy individual. The tragedy is not digital: it is analogue: somebody out there really needs help, and is clearly not getting the support he needs in real life.

Meanwhile, in my real life, I have lots of love and support. I joined Wikipedia shortly after (or perhaps near the end) of year-long cancer treatment. It has given me much joy. I founded WikiProject Scotland, the Scottish Wikipedians Notice Lars, Portal:Scotland and countless articles, cats and initiatives of which to be proud. I have a fantastic, well-paid career, a beautiful loving wife and three children, and am lucky enough to still have my now very-elderly parents around. I am in many ways highly blessed. The analogue me, not the cursed digital me ;)

Thank you to you, and BrownHairedGirl and the many other great Admins who try to do a good job. I chucked Wikipedia before, for about two years I think. During my sebattical a kind Admin, who I had never heard of wrote me a very supportive email about how you are battling stalking and bullying here at Wikipedia. Although it took me about another year to slowly return, that email made a difference: it gave me hope.

Right now I see no hope whatsoever for the project. My own personal case is just a tiny bit in the vast puzzle. I could write for several hours on the topic, but wandering, little-read essays are not in short supply here. I have to take the wee one to school now. Farewell, and thanks for all the diffs. Wee May? Naw. Mais oui! (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Cloisters

This could do with your input; and I would be delighted if you were to engage at the PR; I think we see eye on matter of prose and it would be very helpful indeed to have your help and view. No worries if you are busy. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm always busy but I'm never too busy to look at one of your excellent articles. --John (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

) Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

• News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators

• Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back

• Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases

• Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain

• Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history

• Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks

• Humour: Impossible and unexplained traffic report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Osbert Lancaster

I'm bothering colleagues who contributed to Sir Osbert's peer review to ask if they wish look in at his FAC page if so inclined. Perfectly understand if not, naturally. Tim riley talk 09:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's no bother. I will try to look this evening. --John (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And thank you for recognising it, Gerda. --John (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I may comment. I see my name has already been taken in vain by an outlier. --John (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Miriam Makeba

Miriam Makeba

4 March 1932 – 9 November 2008

Thank you for what you did for Miriam Makeba, "a musician and activist who had a lasting impact on music and popular culture in South Africa and abroad". I use her expressive face today, her birthday, to illustrate my own singing in defiance, - DYK ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? (March 2014). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm delighted to see it there. I only made a few copyedits but I think the article is better for them. --John (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandal on the Sting page

Just to let you know, we have a multiple IP user who has returned to their old tricks and keeps changing the sales figure from what is in the source attributed. Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User Makro

I saw your edit[1] at his talk page (which he since deleted). There is another issue with the edit[2] you brought to his attention. It is the fact he removed a cn tag and replaced with an article[3] as a reference that made no mention of the actress. Is that disruptive editing (the false use of references is a growing problem here) I'll leave to you. @Makro: maybe Makro would like to respond here to what I said about his recent edit....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. --John (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various 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 scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Chris Nunes BLP

Hi John. Hope you are well. Could you take a quick look at this serious BLP violation made by an apparently "experienced" editor? Cheers, --Mike 94.119.64.7 (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

• Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

• News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

• Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

• In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

• Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

• Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

• Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

• Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

• Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in March! Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Beautiful flowers. --John (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User Makro again

You might want to look at this afD he started and my reply back to him found here[4]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I share your concerns. I've asked them to stop doing the AfDs. Let's see what happens. --John (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You're taking the right course of action with this editor, but it is edits like this one[5] that makes me think a block or ban is in their future. I mean he really thinks sports reference isn't a reliable source?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Roxy_the_dog --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we are playing games here, but I will make it explicit to the user what he has been blocked for. --John (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Please respond at AE

John, I just realized that you have not responded to the appeal at AE that you were notified of by Neil, but you are editing elsewhere. That seems to send the message that you consider your block of Roxy, and other admins' attempts to discuss it with you, the least important Wikipedia thing on your plate right now. Is it really? Please respond. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC).

I absolutely did respond here, very promptly, in the section just above. I also responded at the perpetrator's talk. I'll respond at AE when I have a moment; I do have non-Wikipedia priorities to take care of in real life as well. --John (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

John, I absolutely did not in any form or shape suggest that you give AE priority over real life, and I never would. I can't understand how you can think I did. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC).

It was probably your false statement in your first sentence that gave me that impression. I did respond to the problematic user's appeal, immediately. You need to look more carefully before posting, perhaps. Or are you also playing silly games? Another thing; what was the urgency about unblocking someone, when they had unequivocally broken the restrictions? --John (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatever special editing restrictions you want to place on an article need to be "advertised" per this and logged per this. Let me know if you have any questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this requirement. To be honest I thought the logging system had long been superseded by a technical measure and that logging was done automatically now. What was I thinking of? --John (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding a discretionary sanctions notification to a user talk page is logged automatically. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That must be it. Oh well, you live and learn. Thanks again. --John (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Neil, I have to say this has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The perpetrator has got off very lightly on what seems like a technicality, and the danger is they will be encouraged to repeat the bad behaviour. I am also left with a lingering suspicion about the cleanliness of the hands of you and your colleague MastCell (who rushed to unblock with a suspicion of involvement, and did not even have the courtesy to inform me here. Poor form.). You don't need to respond here unless you want to, but I will be carefully considering my options going forward. I will certainly make sure that my next AE block has all the right boxes ticked, to avoid another nonsense unblock like this one. --John (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed! Please consider adding editnotice on Ayurveda, just like we can also see on Homeopathy(Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Homeopathy, Template:Editnotices/Page/Homeopathy), whenever a person will edit the article[6] or its talk page[7], they will be already aware of the article sanctions. My Lord (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I stopped by here to see if you wanted any help with applying discretionary sanctions but instead see you've bought into this involved nonsense. Will you be recusing yourself from any BLP admin actions involving anyone participating in the same discussion or talk page as you months or years ago? I would think (and hope) not. If you look at my posts at AE, the first said the block might be justified but was improperly levied and the second pointed to an editing restriction that might justify the block. Seven different admins including myself posted there and every one said the sanction was procedurally flawed. There are four things required for a proper AE block and only one was done (and not by you). The unblock wasn't "nonsense" - it was required by Arbcom who has laid down the rules every admin using discretionary sanctions has to follow (or potentially be desysopped). Now, if you still want any assistance in ticking the right boxes I will do my best to answer any questions you might have, as I offered to above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi John. First of all, I wanted to apologize for not coming here before unblocking Roxy. I see your point about how that came across as discourteous, and I'm genuinely sorry for that. I should have come here directly, as well as posting at WP:AE.

  In terms of "rushing" to unblock, my sense of urgency stemmed from the fact that there was a consensus that Roxy's block was inappropriate. Once that consensus exists, I think we owe it to the blocked editor to act expeditiously, out of fairness; there is ongoing harm while s/he remains blocked for reasons determined to be invalid. If I were the blocked editor, and a consensus of admins at WP:AE had decided that I'd been incorrectly blocked, then I'd feel a sense of urgency to get it fixed. Arguably that empathy for the blocked editor comes at the expense of empathy for you, the blocking admin, which I regret—you undoubtedly had reasons for acting as you did and would have explained them in more detail had I given you the opportunity. That's an unfortunate but very real trade-off.

  In terms of the block itself, if it were just a procedural issue then I'd be more inclined to argue in favor of letting it stand. I agree with you that WP:AE has accreted a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy, especially since its initial intent was to streamline the handling of problem areas. But there were not just technical concerns. There were also concerns (and not just on my part) about the fairness and appropriateness of the sanction.

  I don't believe that I am, or was, "involved" in any meaningful way that would prohibit acting as an admin on the request in question. The only evidence (I almost wrote "evidence" in scare quotes, but that would be churlish) that I saw presented was the output of an editor-interaction tool, which is notoriously useless in these situations. That said, if you have an ongoing concern that I'm involved, then I'm open to discussing it further either here or on my talkpage, since that is an issue I take seriously. I edit and admin controversial topics regularly, and have for more than a decade, so I wouldn't still be here if I didn't make a concerted effort to stay on the right side of that particular red line. In any case, I don't think that the unblock was particularly controversial, in that there was a documented consensus of other uninvolved admins supporting it; I think it was more an instance of implementing a consensus expeditiously, rather than taking a unilateral action.

  Anyhow, I know we've had positive interactions in the past and I hope that a sense of mutual respect survives this incident; I certainly respect you and your work here, even though we clearly disagree on both substance and style when it comes to this particular situation. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge these messages. --John (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for the long time it has taken me to properly respond here to your important comments. Quite a short one from me; Neil, I appreciate your offer to guide me through the intricacies of making AE actions correctly. I'm glad you recognise the importance of the BLP enforcement actions I sometimes take. This matter is a lot more complex than taking Daily Mail-sourced tabloid gossip off articles on living actors.

MastCell, I'm not that bothered about the formalities of the thing to be honest. Whatever leads us to a good encyclopedia. But I gulp at concerns (and not just on my part) about the fairness and appropriateness of the sanction; so you go to an article that you know has been a nest of controversy for years, and have previously been blocked for insulting people on. You know it is under restrictions on edit-warring. You also know that it's under an ArbCom restriction, because you added the template to the article talk page yourself. You make three reverts in a couple of days. No BLP or copyvio exemption, just flat-out edit-warring to score some sort of point. What do you honestly expect to happen? --John (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ray Wilkins

On 4 April 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ray Wilkins, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition. Terrible news. John (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda

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

---

Hi, John, perhaps you noticed the complaints by me and others at AE about the unusual editing restrictions on Talk:Ayurveda: "You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked."I've never heard of such a restriction before... Does it mean the article can't be edited at all without going via the talkpage, and WP:BOLD doesn't apply to it, nor our "bias" in favour of reliable scientific sources?" "I don't think this is a workable sanction" It was actually added by Jytdog,[8], and I'm not sure where it comes from, but I think from here and ultimately from you. I may well be wrong about that. Anyway, I propose removing the restriction per the comments from me and MastCell that I've linked to. Would you object to that? I mean, I'd like to remove the whole thing that's outside the edit notice template, including the link to "a number of editing restrictions" in an archive. AFAICS, it's not on to expect people to comply with a whole pretty complicated discussion in an archive, simply because it's linked on the talkpage. As I say, I may be wrong that this is your baby at all, but in any case, do you object to any of it?

P.S., normally, I would offer to replace those restrictions with more ordinary ones, such as the standard restrictions at Talk:Donald Trump. It's just that I have sworn never to put any page restrictions on any pages — I hate 'em all and think they're a mare's nest, though I realize some of them may be necessary sometimes. I could put a note on AE mentioning that I've removed what's there, and invite other uninvolved admins to add what they think may be necessary. Unless you would like to do it? Bishonen | talk 14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC).

Given that page has been protected again with users violating present sanctions, I would say only the third point needs to be changed, to allow WP:BOLD edits. Third point should make it clear that any new edit that has been challenged should not to be restored without gaining consensus. Such standard is also supported by WP:CON and WP:BRD. Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A "mares' nest"?? Are you sure you didn't mean a "beggar's lair"? (No offence, John). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge this request. --John (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I could do it if I could figure out again how to work the templates and edit notices, since I haven't taken an oath of never setting DS. ~Awilley (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Awilley. It's an esoteric art indeed. Your offer prompted me to look for how it's handled on other alternative medicine articles, and that has left me unconvinced that Ayurveda needs any page restrictions at all, over and above the {{ArbComPseudoscience}} template currently on it. Acupuncture, for example, which is surely under as much pressure, doesn't have them. It does have the {{recruting}} template, which I'd add to Ayurveda too. So my thinking is I'll simply remove the text in question and add {{recruting}}, provided John turns out to be agreeable with that; if he disagrees, I'll propose it on AE for more eyes. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for your patience. I'm having a slight crisis as my daughter has been admitted to hospital. It's unlikely I will be able to write a final response here for 24 h or so. Shouldn't be a hurry anyway as the article is protected. --John (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No, no, there's absolutely no hurry. Hope your family is OK. Bishonen | talk 14:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC).

Take care and spend some time with your family, I can follow up next week. ~Awilley (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your good wishes. My 9-year-old was having breathing difficulties and was hospitalised for a couple of days. She seems fine now; it's an occasional complication of her asthma. My only problem at the moment is that I'm on a very slow Internet connection, but I will do my best to give you a fair and well-thought-out response.
• So; post-protection, where does the article best go? If you've read the article talk page and its archives (and of course you have, or you wouldn't be claiming an informed opinion of how to administer it), you'll see that there's been a longstanding problem with the scope of the article. Is it about the many-thousand year history of the belief system? Or is it about the modern practitioners who promote it alongside or instead of our modern evidence-based medicine? Should there be two articles? Three?
• There was a serious problem (and those of you with a better connection than me can trawl the AN and AN/I archives to see) for several years, between people interested in the history and modern practice of the belief system, and those wishing to explicitly debunk it in a way that the former groups found offensive. The three groups have proved historically unable to frame a compromise that works for everyone and for our readers. There was misbehaviour and raised hackles and tempers on all sides.
• Since I imposed the restrictions, there has been far less trouble at the article, which I think is good. On the other hand, there has been little progress in resolving the problems at the article, which is bad. Editors on all three sides are perhaps getting over-focused on what the lead should say, which is the last thing (in my opinion) they should worry about. Get the article scope sorted out, then write the article, then decide the lead, would be my advice, if I was working on this for FA. But things are stuck. And an admin cannot force people in entrenched positions to compromise. Nevertheless, there needs to be a process of change there.
• I will not countenance after the time I have put into this article a return to the status quo ante, of editors insulting each other and edit-warring to win by attrition some points in some daft culture war. This is the predominant approach that has led to the current pretty mediocre article. Ayurveda, as a belief system of millennia is a nuanced topic, and it needs a nuanced approach, as much as Christianity or Islam do. Our coverage of it needs to be well-thought-out. It deserves a better article.
• I take the point that there may be no particular need for special restrictions as the existing General Sanctions on Pseudoscience cover the article adequately. I am not much of a process wonk, although I do understand the need for processes and procedures. I'd take it as a given, that anyone wishing to return to a free-fire zone of insult and reverting, can as easily be blocked under GS as they can under "my" restrictions.
• We could lift all the restrictions I added to keep the peace years ago, iff there is a joint appetite from esteemed admin colleagues who have shown an interest here to get involved in properly mediating and solving the underlying problems which exist at the article. I have given one opinion above on how that might be pursued. There may be other possibilities. I am sure that with a firm but fair collegial approach, we could mediate a solution. That would be nice. A well-constructed RfC might be a good first step. --John (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• No one except Bish is advocating lifting restrictions. What we're saying is that the restrictions have to be properly displayed and logged. If you want my advice then go with the restrictions placed on the most problematic AP articles - 1RR, consensus required, and civility. This forces discussion and limits edit warring as no editor can re-revert unless they get consensus on the talk page. You are free to implement more esoteric restrictions but realize that the more esoteric the restriction, the greater the chance that you'll be the only admin enforcing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am also strongly advocating that we replace the restrictions with something more standardized. Something like {{American politics AE}} ~Awilley (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be totally fine with that. --John (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• You should probably be the one who places and logs the restrictions. I don't say this to be difficult, but rather because the logging admin is sometimes called in for their opinion on AE requests as it's assumed they are familiar with the disputes that triggered the restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure Ayurveda is on a level with the most problematic AP articles, and I would prefer a simple 1RR restriction, which is also pretty standardized. That can be gamed too, but not on a level with the consensus required and the civility restrictions. But it's clear that that's just me, and I will accept what others are advocating here — 1RR, consensus required, and civility. John placing them would probably be ideal, as Neil says, but I'm OK with any admin who's not me doing it. Bishonen | talk 08:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC).

Agree. I've done a little editing on this article. I don't think it hurts to have a 1RR restriction given the history on this article and civility can be an issue and should be monitored.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC))

1RR with the present wording that: "This includes team edit wars where A adds something, B removes, C restores and D re-removes. In this new restriction, editors C and D would be eligible for warning or a block depending on their previous conduct," is good to go.

Having WP:ECP will also reduce tons of problems. Capitals00 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

History of aluminium

I want to thank you once more for your help with dubnium. Now after this review is over, I've got another article I'd want to submit to FAC, history of aluminium, but I think it would be great if you looked through it first and corrected prose if that is needed. The GAN reviewer helped me out with prose a bit, but I'd like to make sure that the prose quality is up to the high FA standard. Could you help me with that?--R8R (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look at it. --John (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Tarage

John, can you tell me what "I spoke out for removal of your bit" refers to? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I cannot. --John (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User page in breach of WP:POLEMIC

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.

---

You have a user page at User:John/sandbox3 that is in breach of WP:POLEMIC, which states that if the information is to be used in a dispute resolution process it should be "in a timely manner". This page was reactivated from old information on 6 February 2018‎, and it is way outside any reasonable definition of "timely". I suggest this is blanked, or better still deleted, before further steps are taken. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be happy to blank it to spare your embarrassment. --John (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No embarrassment on my part, I do assure you: you are in breach of guidelines that ANI are always happy to back up. It would be best to spare your own blushes. - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's quite worrying to read. Do you intend to continue your misbehaviour? --John (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no misbehaviour on my part: you are the one in breach of the guidelines, and the one that ANI would have 'ruled' against if it had gone that far. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh. So you would stand by edits like this one? I'm almost tempted to call your bluff and take it to AN/I, but I'm in too good a mood. The sun is shining and the sexist claptrap was removed a long time ago. Maybe you learned something from the whole matter, even if you lack the courage to admit it. We'll call it quits, for now. --John (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

Referring to seasons of the year vs. 'early' or 'late' in the year

Hi, I noticed that you made several alterations to the Nick Drake article, where you changed references to spring and autumn to 'early' or 'late' in the year. Is this to conform with a Wikipedia policy? I just wondered. It's not a big deal, but it occurred to me that where it said 'spring' I would assume that to mean perhaps March, April and May, but when altered to 'early' I would be more likely to interpret that as meaning January, February and March. Dubmill (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Seasons are relative; spring is March, April and May in the temperate part of the Northern Hemisphere, but it's in September and October in Australia. Tropical areas have no seasons to speak of. We are better to use the month if we know it, or to say "early" or "late" in the year if we don't. The relevant style guide is at WP:SEASON. --John (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course, silly of me. I hadn't thought of that. The policy makes sense generally. But in this case, the reader could surely work out from the narrative that the events were taking place in the Northern Hemisphere. But I suppose it is asking too much of them to extrapolate that 'spring' means somewhere between mid-March and mid-June. I do still feel that 'early' makes it more vague, as well as skewing it more towards the beginning of the year, but, as you say, the easy way round it would be to establish exactly when it was (month) and avoid any vagueness in the first place. Dubmill (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I tend to agree with you Dubmill that WP:SEASON is a bit too restrictive. Sure "Spring" shouldn't be used in a general context, but in an article like Nick Drake narrative context can nearly always provide the necessary disambiguation. "Spring" is certainly not the same as "early". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If precision is important, it would be best just to give the actual month. --John (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. But if the source gives only the season, I don't see the big problem Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a manual of style thing. The source may use capital letters for section headings, or ordinal dates. On Wikipedia, the house style is not to do that. --John (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In my view MoS is too limiting in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

• Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

• News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

• In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

• In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

• Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

• Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

• Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

• Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

• Discussion report: The future of portals

• Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

• Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

• Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

• Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

• Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually mandatory notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. I'm not sure I deserve it this month but I suppose I tried my best. --John (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's all it takes ;) - I didn't get to a single FAC review. Have one open, DYK? - Did you see the image of GMG's daughter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

case request:Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors

Dear John,
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that the Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors case request has been withdrawn by filing party and archived.
Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Jolly good. --John (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseballs Bugs close

I know you and I aren't on the best of terms right now, but this is wholly unrelated to that. Your close puzzled me. You put it in the section about ANI, but you also effectively closed the ongoing topic discussion for BB to be banned from ANI and AN with limited exceptions. Nor did you comment on that discussion. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I try never to carry grudges, but I do seem to recall you didn't reply to the last couple of messages I left you at your talk page. Per ADMINACCT we are not meant to do that. Nevertheless I am happy to do my best to explain. I did read the entire discussion, and I do not believe there is a consensus to ban BB from anywhere other than AN/I; his edits at AN are rare and those at the refdesk don't seem as problematic. As I see BB indicated some days ago that he had self-imposed a ban from the area many see as problematic for him, and as there seems little prospect of, or evidence of a need for, a wider ban, and the discussion had been going on for quite a while, I thought this was a good outcome for everybody. However, on reflection, and on rereading, we do need to make clear that legitimate access to the boards for their intended purpose is of course allowed. And you're right, there's probably a good consensus for a ban from AN as well. I'll amend my close. Let me know what you think. --John (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

There we are, what do you think now? And thanks for the nudge, that would've been imperfect. --John (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your amendment is fine. Thanks for taking care of it. You might want to add the ban to WP:RESTRICT when you have a moment. As for the other matter, I know I should have responded, but every time I thought about it, I wrestled (unsuccessfully) with how to word a response that would not be convoluted. So, I let it go. Not the best excuse, but it's honest. I apologize, though, for not responding.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, especially as there was no case to answer there anyway and the filer withdrew. But I'm genuinely curious still what your thoughts would be. Going forward, I need to know how to handle something like that if it was to recur. My feeling is that Drmies spoke the truth when he said my characterisation as some sort of rouge admin on BLP matters was an unfair one. If we have serious policies like BLP, I think we owe it to our subjects and our readers to enforce them seriously and literally, don't you? --John (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's the question again.

If I may, I'd like to challenge you also on John decided a long time ago that citations to the Mirror Daily Mail are not permitted under any circumstances in a BLP article. His rigid view has not been accepted by many editors. I certainly do not think my view on this is in any way exceptional; a well-participated RfC concluded a year ago that Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.... There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. (my emphasis) We also have a core policy, WP:BLP, which states This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. (my emphasis) If I am out of line in reading these two very firm longstanding consensuses and concluding that this was a terrible edit, even with WP:EVADE arguably behind it, then I still do not see it. I am perfectly ready to accept critique on the way I delivered the message, but I stand utterly by my judgement that the edit was unacceptable. Thoughts?

• [You're about to move this up, no doubt] John, I will sort of reiterate what I said there, very briefly--I support your stance at least generally speaking (it is entirely possible that in some cases I don't agree with your judgment just as I don't always agree with Hillbilly's, but that's the name of the game in judging possible BLP violations)... Having said that, I think that there have been a few cases where you ruffled feathers needlessly. Sometimes we admins do this (most of us do this on occasion) by adopting a sort of formality, complete with appropriate syntax and templates, a method no doubt frequently seen as acting from authoritay. I think I've seen this happen to you twice in the last half year or so. Do with it what you will. As always, I appreciate your attention to the BLP; I wish Hillbilly had just been a bit more flexible and I fear that on occasion you give others the opportunity to lump you in with Hillbilly. So there's my opinion. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• • I appreciate the critique, and that of NeilN, and that of Ivanvector. I grow more humble as I grow older; having children is a great education in that line, and it would be a crap project if administrators could randomly issue blocks, warnings and restrictions without critiques from their peers. But here's the thing; I get that most of us seem to agree that BLP and its underlying principle of do no harm outweighs our internal site behaviour policies. Bbb23, can I count you in on that? I will certainly give more thought to how I deal with the next editor who thinks adding or restoring BLP-busting material is ok because "it isn't really that bad an allegation" or "the subject probably wouldn't mind this" or "I was reverting a blocked editor". But it strikes me it'd be great to have more admins working on this. It's be great if one of the esteemed admins mentioned here (and I'm not being sarcastic, all of you are people I respect) could point me to an example where they had dealt with a similar issue more smoothly. But I'm not seeing that. The more of us there are, the easier this will be for all of us. --John (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I have no issue with you warning editors who revert the edits of socks and re-introduce BLP violations. But the way you warn them is definitely sub-optimal. I'm talking about this situation. An only warning for something the three users probably have no clue about (seeing as it was done the day before and in good faith) and no explanation. One of the editors, with a clean block record and 22,000 edits stretching back to 2008, has stopped editing after that. Take the time to write a custom message like, "I've removed the BLP violation you reintroduced with your revert of the sock puppet. While the edits of socks may usually be reverted freely, this assumes the revert will not put back vandalism or BLP violations. Please be more careful to check the edit you are reverting as repeated reintroductions of problematic material may lead to editing restrictions." This is a pretty stiffly worded warning. I usually go with something like, "Hey, be more careful when reverting socks. [This revert] reintroduced a BLP violation." I usually get an acknowledgement and an apology as a reply. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Neil, I have no problem with your suggestion, but you're talking rubbish; this editor was editing yesterday! And nobody likes to receive a warning, but on something like BLPs I don't think we should be pussyfooting around. If someone thinks it is ok to restore BLP-busting material to an article, they need to know it is not. If they cannot edit under these conditions, there is no place for them here, because that is one of our foundational values. I am glad to see this editor is still here, and I am glad they seem to have stopped breaking BLP. Sounds like a result to me. --John (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Please read what I wrote carefully. One of the editors you warned has stopped editing. [9] And the lack of AGF shown in the above statement is disturbing and seems to be representative of how you warn editors. Giving only warnings for vandalism to veteran editors involved in a dispute with you, [10], giving only warnings for BLP vios assuming the editors thought it was ok to restore that specific material, instead of just doing a usual sock revert. Talking to your fellow veteran editors instead of slapping them with only warnings for edits that offend you is not "pussyfooting around". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
          • LOL, perhaps responding to Johnbod's ignorant revert and rude edit summary with a template wasn't the best, but it was nothing whatsoever to do with BLP! Again, I am always willing to take a critique, but it is so much better when you can provide an example of where you have done it how it ought to be done. Can you? --John (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
          • And on editor retention, I regret deeply that Sakura Cartelet has stopped editing. All departures are a cause for regret, and we will all depart one day. I also deeply regret the loss of Hillbillyholiday, who tried to clean up our BLP coverage, helped to get the Daily Mail banned, but could not navigate our behavioural policies and exhausted the community's patience. Is there anything you could have done to handle that matter better, do you think? --John (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
            • I doubt Johnbod was laughing when he received an only warning for vandalism from an admin. And I'm not going to trawl through tens of thousands of my user talk page edits to find an instance of where I talked to an editor about looking at what they're reverting. I followed up with the three editors you warned with a more sensible message and I gave you a sample message you can use or not above. As for Hillbillyholiday, if there are admins who enable that behavior, then that behavior is going to continue. Ask yourself whether a stiff warning (you seem to have no problem handing those out) from you would have changed anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
              • Good. Thanks. No. --John (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Drmies does again what I am sometimes unable to do, i.e., express complex thoughts in an understandable way. The part of what Drmies said about "formality" I agree with. I may have gone overboard in accusing you of general rigidity in this area, but I have experienced a rigidity in your interpretation of what constitutes a BLP violation. At the same time, I don't remember the RfC, which certainly adds weight to your position and your removal of the material. If I recall, you didn't remove everything that had been re-added by Ivanvector; you removed only the stuff cited to the Daily Mail, which is to your credit because it shows surgical precision, which most editors, including me, don't always take the time to do. I pretty much agree with Black Kite's commonsense approach, which is what I tried to express in my more "formally"-written way (heh - you're not alone). (The only reason Drmies has any sympathy for Hillbilly is because he lives in Alabama. It's probably one of his neighbors. I am going to be punished for this comment by him ragging me about football and/or beer.) Hope that helps - belatedly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't Hillbilly a Brit? No, Bbb, you can't play the educated American here, looking down on the rest of us (out of jealousy, no doubt--but then you probably don't know what my new "17" bumper sticker references)--I supported much of Hillbilly's work because of the BLP, which I get slightly more zealous (and conflicted) about with every passing year.

    While we're on the topic of us rednecks--we put on a damn good show last week in Montgomery, which all of y'all missed but I didn't, and this Thursday morning we're going to the The National Memorial for Peace and Justice. All of us white people need to go. I'm going with a dude who's as white and bald as me (though slightly younger), and we're going to go and be moved and feel ashamed in some ways and ready to #dobetter. The first time you shake hands with a black man who used to be on death row (and every American knows why that black man was so much more likely to be on death row than any white man) and now is free thanks to the Equal Justice Initiative, you don't forget that. I shook hands with a man who used to be on death row two weeks ago. It is a very special feeling. And one of my pipe dreams is to have 4000+ articles called "Lynching of person X" so that it won't be so easy to forget what was done. Sorry, I guess I'm getting carried away. You know both of you are my favorites. John, I don't have to tell you what fatherhood does to a person. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

    • As always, Drmies, it's you who cut to the crux. Off out for a bicycle ride with the kids. It's a lovely day. --John (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I appreciate being pinged when my conduct is being discussed, however given my particular administrative focus I would very much like not to be lumped in with a bunch of administrators singing the praises of a blocked editor. I don't think my input is being sought with respect to Baseball Bugs, on whose restrictions I remain neutral as I said in the discussion, and as for the Daily Mail I've already been threatened with arbitration sanctions and I do not intend to comment further. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Ivanvector, I intentionally didn't ping you because I thought you'd prefer not to be involved in this discussion. I'm sorry if I was incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Ivanvector, if it makes it easier for us to work together on this great project, I apologise for issuing the DS alert. You made a mistake in restoring BLP-busting material to an article; that's no big deal, we all make mistakes. When I asked you about it, you responded by challenging me to unblock HBH, which wasn't a good response. When I tried to clarify again, you responded with this piece of whataboutery ("Frankly, your ongoing encouragement of this misconduct is unbecoming an administrator..."). This was also a mistake. When I notified you of the DS regime, you took it to Arbcom for a clarification, which you then withdrew when it became apparent that your view wasn't going to prevail. Mistakes are fine, but we need to learn from them and not repeat them. It's apparent from your responses highlighted that you have (had?) some sort of animus against me and my actions. As we will be working together in the future, let's try to let go of that. I do not carry any grudge against you for your mistakes, but are we all clear that they were mistakes? I need to know for myself that any such situations will be handled better in the future than they were here. Will they be? --John (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

History of aluminium

Hi! I wanted to ask you if the pause with the copyediting was intentional. Again, as I said, there is no hurry, and our project will launch another FAC before that of this article. I just wanted to make sure it hadn't slipped out of your mind.--R8R (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I only just saw this. I will look today. --John (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's okay, I'll be eagerly waiting.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The word 'although'

Hi, John. Why do you seem to have such an issue with the word 'although' being used in articles?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, given contextual structure, writing: "His attendance record was mediocre, although he frequently volunteered to work overtime" is more explanatory and less juxtaposing than either: "His attendance record was mediocre; he frequently volunteered to work overtime" or "His attendance record was mediocre, and he frequently volunteered to work overtime" as you alternately superseded. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Just logic. "Although" expresses an opinion about causality. Is there a causal connection between someone's attendance record and their propensity to work overtime? --John (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

John, it's used here to signal a contrast: he sometimes didn't attend when he should have, but he often attended when he didn't need to. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And you reckon there's a causal connection? Interesting. Is this supported by the sources? --John (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It needn't be causal. "John is a prolific editor, although he tends to avoid biographies." SarahSV ^(talk) 07:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style says that it denotes "reason or concession" (5.201, p. 288). SarahSV ^(talk) 07:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge reckons it means either "despite the fact that" or "but". I don't like your example; I would gloss it as "John is a prolific editor; he tends to avoid biographies." or "John is a prolific editor, but tends to avoid biographies." depending on how much causality the sources claimed. --John (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There's an interesting difference of emphasis between "John is a prolific editor, although he tends to avoid biographies" and "John is a prolific editor, but he tends to avoid biographies." SarahSV ^(talk) 08:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I think on an encyclopedia, we need to be really careful about emphatically pronouncing on causality. --John (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Although we all know that John "tends to avoid biographies" like a lumberjack tends to avoid chainsaws. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Although" I have nothing but respect for you, and "although" we have collaborated on improving articles, I sometimes get the impression (with your "ce" edits particularly) that you're scanning through articles via CTRL+F seeking singular words and word combinations to supersede en masse, rather than reading through the article or the chapter. It creates an almost collage combinative effect. Although, nonetheless, it could be, improvements can be sought.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I respect you too. Certainly, when I come across an article of 15,000 words with 62 "although"s - almost one every 200 words! - I will always use Ctrl-F to find them and reduce them. The aim isn't to eliminate them completely but to reduce overuse. 38 "as to"s was also probably too many, as was 97 "would"s. Easy to miss such stylistic matters in the heat of creating an article. All of our work here is combinative, which is its strength and its weakness. --John (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I think all your Fred West "although burials" deserve a review. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to roll up your sleeves and improve the article yourself. "All" of the removals? You'd be restoring this: He would later bury her naked body in the yard close to the back door of the flat, and although he remained adamant he had not dismembered this particular victim, a subsequent autopsy suggested the body had been severed at the hip (although this damage may have been caused by building work Fred conducted at the property in 1976). Can you really not see anything wrong with that sentence? --John (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say anything had to be restored. Or that I would restore it. I was simply suggesting that it might be a good idea to review each of the 62 deletions. That example sentence may not have the best construction possible. Like Kieron, I wanted to avoid anything that might look like edit warring. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No deletions. Copyedits including many edits of word choice. Nobody has mentioned edit-warring. Review away. --John (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The word "although" was present... then it was removed. To me that looked like a deletion. I guess in some cases, it's been replaced by something else. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I also removed 24 instances of "is known to". I left a couple that actually arguably added to the meaning. Please review these as well. --John (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well done. I'm assuming you mean also at Fred West. It might be best to ask for a review, by all interested editors, over there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• We always get the desired result... don't we?--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just an observation, but we can now CTRL+F ", but" in light of above conversational text and recent edits and find intriguing results. I feel some form of ratio and consideration may be due (for us all) here, given recent edits and justification. Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. We're bound to step on each others' toes occasionally, like we did in (I think) 2016.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

hello

Hey Edibletabler (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Edibletabler (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. What can I do for you? --John (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

FAC

Would you have time to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive1? Should be easy after a thorough review by Usernameunique ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to take a look, I so enjoy reviewing your articles. It might not be for a day or two though. --John (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hi, John...I'll begin by saying I am a FA survivor (7x as either nom or rev) so most of what I see when reviewing/editing articles is based on those past experiences...every moment of which I remember fondly, enthusiastically, and with great appreciation for the process and editors involved. I actually enjoy doing it...and that's what brought me here. I've seen some of your comments re: Barrack Obama, and from what I've gathered from some of the war stories I've heard from other editors regarding that BLP, the TE and some of the behavior was nothing short of nightmarish. I'm hoping to tap into some of your experiences for guidance (even though I long ago promised myself to never talk politics or religion, and I blame my work at NPP as the cause for that broken promise). There appears to be some consistency in the style and presentation across the board for articles of past presidents, as there should be when compliant with PAGs. I also realize that we're dealing with Trump's unpresidential personality and flamboyance plus whatever else online media, pundits and his opposition throws at him in today's click-bait economy. I imagine NOTNEWS and Coatrack will remain an issue with that BLP for some time to come. I'm not asking you to get involved in the editing - oh, contrare - but I was hoping you would share your views with me (in an overall summary) as a fellow FA reviewer re: his BLP as a "check-all-systems" for me to gage my own editorial judgment. My focus is NPOV, the quality of the syntax and sources cited for contentious labeling and statements (I've noticed too few other significant views included in the article), and I see an apparent bias or spin and coatrackishness of the article overall. There are instances of stating opinions as facts in WikiVoice, cherrypicking quotes (and omission of material which changes context), and stating seriously contested assertions as facts instead of opinions per WP:REDFLAG. Anyway...if you don't have time, I understand, but I hope you do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will need to think about that. --John (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Vielen dank Gerda, aber dass wird immer weniger als ich alt und müde werde. --John (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

macht nichts, werden wir alle ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I changed the image to your "personal" flower ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that your flowers are on the Main page? With Claus Wisser on his 76th irthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Gerda. Sorry I missed this message until now. --John (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season

Hey John. If you have some time, could you take a look at this - Talk:List_of_association_football_teams_to_have_won_four_or_more_trophies_in_one_season#Criteria. Would be good to get your thoughts on it. Let me know if it's not clear. Thanks --hippo43 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved. Don't worry about it. --hippo43 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I did take a look and I am glad it resolved itself. Good to hear from you. --John (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Irons "OBE"

Slow edit war between me and a series of IPs geolocating to Jakarta. I wonder could you protect and/or suggest any other suitable action? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Trouble ye not and chill thy beans, dear John. Now dealt with by a well-known heavy metal fan. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. Glad Ritchie was able to help you. --John (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Alleyn's publications

Hi, I noted that you removed a great deal of content on 2016-08-15, I understand the reason is lack of a verifiable source. Is there any way to add this information, which to the best of my knowledge is correct, but would otherwise be classed as original research? 146.169.177.33 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's right, I have always removed material on sight which appears promotional and is unsourced or primary sourced. You'd need to find a neutral, third-party source (books are good) which makes the claim, in order to include it. Otherwise schools and other organisations' Wikipedia articles would look indistinguishable from their own websites. --John (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep schools

I'm not saying I disagree with all your recent edits, but I do think that the removal of fairly innocuous material about the history of individual prep schools is somewhat savage. It is not the case that all unreferenced material has to be removed; it becomes an issue only when it is promotional or otherwise misleading. Deb (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Feel free to restore anything you can find sources for. --John (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Third stream

Hi John. I wonder could you move this article name to Third Stream? All 22 instances in the article use upper case for both words. Lower case seems wrong to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I've raised a question about it in article talk. --John (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Seven years isn't long to wait at Wikipedia, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Danke sehr Gerda. --John (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked User

Can you delete that personal attack on my talk page . Kpgjhpjm 18:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have done that. --John (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Armstrong edits

Failed to ping you in my edit summary, but I was in the middle of expanding it, so I kept the version I was working on. I was hoping for it to be in chronological order (going to put the Columbia details in now), but feel free to reorder if you disagree. I will be done in maybe 20 minutes or so on that section. Kees08 (Talk) 20:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool. I already supported the article at FAC, and I still want to be able to support it after the improvements are made. --John (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Understood, there have been enough edits I plan to ping everyone that has supported before it is closed. You can of course make improvements as we go as well. Currently working on the comment that Neil's life after Apollo is not weighted enough in the article. I am done with that section now, feel free to go in and improve it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Help

I am being ATTACKED - WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT by this person - User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for many months, he apparrently hates me and the visual arts. Please get this guy off my back. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that a short time ago Modernist was warned by User:NeilN about using invective like this to characterize ongoing content disputes [11], a warning Modernist has repeatedly disregarded. This comes out of a longrunning content dispute regarding the use of nonfree images of visual art, where Modernist is among those who strongly reject NFCC policy (see, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Under attack, and the related deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 18 (where many of the disputed uses that Modernist advocated for have already been removed). The underlying issue is whether certain articles on the visual arts are exempt from (or subject to much more relaxed application of) basic WP:NFCC, WP:V, and WP:RS policies. With his side not prevailing in the dispute, he is again personalizing the issues rather than substantively addressing serious policy concerns. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. --John (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sitting on my hands... I swear...

Because I don't need to unload on the FAC talk page. Really, I don't. (Thank you for that comment, by the way) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's an institutional problem at FAC. St. Caurgula put it well here. The problem isn't that there is a problem; it's that there's a problem and a significant group of editors denying there's a problem and telling dissenters to "play nice", "assume good faith" etc. Let's fix the problem, would be my take on it. --John (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The whole reason you initiated the post seems to have gotten lost in a discussion about process. I'm not sure the core behavioural issue can or should be resurrected now. Thanks for raising though, I thought it was just me that saw what was happening. Caurgula (the editor formerly known as Ceoil) (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Note

You're right; I should know better than to call in a mention of good faith in a discussion like that; I'll try not to make that mistake again. I think I was concerned that you weren't being quite fair to Brian, but as I see you've tweaked your comment a bit I've no more to say. Thanks for starting that discussion, by the way; I think it's been useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, and thank you for the note. I think it's a discussion worth having. --John (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nihonium

Hello John. By any chance, could you review the article at its FAC page? The review seems to go fine except it could use another reviewer and the clock is ticking. If you could, feel free to think I owe you something for that.--R8R (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will take a look. --John (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Our Project is currently producing a series of bronze stars at a rate of one per every couple of months and I'd hate that series to halt only because one review did not get enough attention.--R8R (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles such as North Cascades National Park and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article! Your copyediting saved the day John. While I'd like to think of myself as a good organizer and researcher, prose is not my forte. Thanks again!--MONGO (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. Glad I was able to help. Thanks for writing such an interesting article. --John (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mary Hopkin

Hi John. I wonder would you care to look at this? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Yeah well known for bullying us with YouTube vids :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And I warn you, those videos could get serious! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I warned them. --John (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But looks like you've lit the blue touch-paper. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

John, you're strictly correct that you didn't "lock your talk page"...but DrKay did a couple of weeks ago. So the IP is strictly correct. For once :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very well aware of that. There is no need for the IP to edit my talk page for them to discuss their behaviour or to stop harassing Martin. --John (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Check. I dunno about all this bullying though. The humanity! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, SN 54129, there's no need to get all "antsy".... I might have to resort to the "big guns". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

High Tatras

... for improving article quality in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you too Gerda for all that you do. --John (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Perfect day to say that, 9 years into this ;) look! I took the pic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's beautiful! I have never been there. --John (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Which one, the Slovakia mountains or the American singer after singing of "des Glückes stummes Schweigen" (the mute silence of happiness)? Don't miss the video of her performance for a crowd that starts with three times "bzzt" ;) (unless you love Trump, that is). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I travelled through Bratislava by train when it was still Czechoslovakia, but that is all I know of Slovakia. As for American politics, although I lived there for a few years, I have very little interest in it currently. I'd like to see that video. --John (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's still on my talk, Sara Hershkowitz, look for YouTube ;) - If you don't have 8 minutes, highlights are shown in the Axelrod ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Zimbabwean wards

Hi John I see you are a member of the Project Zimbabwe, so you are the right person for me to address. The List of wards of Zimbabwe was mostly put together between 2006 and 2008/9. In the meantime a lot of the information has become woefully outdated, new divisions have been created, districts have been merged or divided, etc., example, Zaka is new. I also found (without actually intentionally looking for such) quite a few names linked to places in other countries or to pages that are not even about any place in the world. Looking at documents such as this and this one gets the feelings that it will be a sisyphean task to update the information; that it might be best to delete it, as it might take longer to verify everthing in it then creating a new one from scratch with new sources. Your appraisal and opinion would be highly valued. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It's a terrible mess. You did the right thing tagging it or update. My feeling would be to leave it up for a month or two and see if anyone can update it. --John (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, John. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to say that I've decided to move on and stop holding a grudge against you. Hopefully you'll forgive me too. Anyway, I'm hoping to do some more editing in the near future. I'm probably going to avoid BLPs though since I don't really like editing them and I tend to enjoy working on anime/video game related articles more. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I had to look you up to see where we had interacted. It looks like you did something ill-advised in March and were affronted that I warned you. I'm glad you no longer hold a grudge, and clearly neither do I. BLP is a difficult area. If thee is ever anything I can do to assist you, please let me know. --John (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• On a related note, I just went back and read the old dodo FAC discussion, an noticed I had been a bit unnecessarily rude to you there (my second FAC, didn't know what I was doing), sorry for that, if it hasn't just been forgotten in the meantime! FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Water under the bridge, long forgotten, but it's appreciated that you say this. --John (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --John (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

... and in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm watching the words, but not seeing a problem

'However' might be a word to watch, but removing it wherever you see it without regard to whether it is actually problematic is, frankly, disruptive. Where you recently removed it, its use was not inappropriate. From a structural standpoint it is better at the beginning of that sentence, and I placed it back there, but just removing it isn't improving the article. The source clearly states the relationship between the content of the preceding sentence and the one with the 'however', so its use is appropriate: "Although the acid-ash hypothesis has been widely accepted and broadly stated as the major modifiable risk factor for bone loss in well cited scientific papers [4, 15], as well as textbooks [16], reference works [17, 18], and lay literature, this hypothesis has not been subjected to critical review.". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are struggling to understand. Are you a native English speaker? Even if you are, it can take a long time to get the hang of stylistics. There are resources and courses you can access if you are interested in becoming a better writer. --John (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at some of your other recent revisions, I also see that you removed some illegitimate uses of the word here, alongside some that were appropriate (note that one of those sentences did have severe issues, but not with 'however'). The word is often used badly, I agree, but please be careful that you are removing them correctly and don't just strip them out willy-nilly. Also, per your reply, read WP:CIVIL. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

As a professional-level writer for over 30 years, I am pretty comfortable and confident with my writing skills, thanks. As an admin here for over 12, you may be sure I am also very familiar with WP:CIVIL. --John (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you have read it, and I'm sure you are also very good at following the letter of it while ignoring the spirit. Your credentials don't really mean anything to me I am afraid; I am less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt given your battleground attitude and that you have seemingly deliberately chosen to goad me wherever possible. I wish you well in your editing endeavours. Try to be nicer to people, it gets you further. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Try and consider that others may be right and you may be wrong, as in this case. On a writing-based project, writing quality takes precedence over being nice. --John (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason you can't have both. I think any editor would expect and appreciate an explanation when reverted, rather than a revert with no explanation whatsoever. Edit summaries are there for a reason. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I take your point. I will try to take time out to educate you. Can you please refrain meantime from undoing any more of my copyedits? --John (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I spent a good hour looking up stuff about 'however' used in this way, but the sources I am reading say that using it this way t the start of a sentence to connect sentences is perfectly fine. We could also use a semi-colon I suppose if you don't like it being at the beginning of a sentence (i.e. xxxxxxx; however, yyyyyy). I do understand that it is often used incorrectly, and most of the 5-7 'however's in that naval article were definitely incorrect, but from my viewpoint it seems like you are just removing any that you find because you don't like the word, including a couple that look OK. The situation at Alkaline diet looks similar to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I added some explanation to User:John/however to explain my thoughts. Tony1 is very good on this stuff. --John (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) X was born in Grimsby; however he grew up in London. ("X was born in Grimsby and grew up in London." There's no contradiction in being born one place and growing up in another.) No-one is saying there's any "contradiction". This is just a stylistic choice, depending on what the author is trying to emphasize, e.g. that X's parents moved unexpectedly when a child, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This conversation is indeed about stylistics Martin, you're right there. --John (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, a discussion about grammar with you can be so refreshing. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree, learning, for example to avoid "however", trying to do better without a clumsy thing - and what does "how ever" stand for, anyway? - separated by a comma. I have a little song of praise for the Lord on the Main page, but praise this lord of language also. Flowers above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

However, John, I Can't Give You Anything (But My Semicolons). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) ... who could forget the last "HoweverGate" back in June 2016?

"however" abundant in that link, with and without commas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

People's Vote

Hi John - regarding this edit where you removed the navbox, what's your opinion regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 12#Template:People's Vote? --woodensuperman 15:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I saw that. I'm not sure what I think. --John (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

History of aluminium

Hi John! I've got an FAC of mine going on, and there's a comment in it that says, "Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem." I'm somewhat surprised to see this but, even though I will surely try to fix myself what I can, could I ask for your help with this? I know I've been needy lately with my prose but could you please help me? If you can, this will be greatly appreciated! Also, if you want a favor in return, ask right away!--R8R (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look. --John (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Really sorry to bother you again and I normally wouldn't, but Tony1 has picked the article for review and he suggested I remove superfluous instances of "that" and you check after me; could you please do that? Did I do it right? Didn't I miss anything? Here's the diff.--R8R (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Links of countries

Hi! Could you explain why is it unnecessary to link participating countries of the Joint Investigation Team in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Criminal investigation. There is even an internal link of JIT in the lead section pointing to this section. There are no any other links in the whole article where readers can click on the team countries. JSoos (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:OVERLINK. --John (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course I understand, you think that in this case it was overlinked. I did reason why I think it was relevant, but you do not give a hint why would it be "difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding" when in the paragraph it is specifically talking about JIT members. There are six lines with 2 links, these 4 more will not make that overlinked. Why is it not overlinking, when talking about passengers nationality, and why is it when talking about members of JIT? JSoos (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It is overlinking wherever it occurs. --John (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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.

---

"SA-11" was in the article since July 2014: a damage pattern indicative of a SA-11. So, what we have:

1. Change in the consensus version: [12] - the revert to consensus: [13]

2. Start of the edit war, re-introduction of non-consensus changes: [14] and the righteous revert: [15]

3. Third addition of non-consensus changes: [16]

And then there was the help of a friend. Read the rule Wikipedia:Consensus, please.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh hi, Nicoljaus, fancy seeing you here. I think if you want to accuse John of sockpuppetry, you ought to at least show us a few diffs and name-some-IP-names? Or else haul him straight over to AN/I an ask for and WP:SPI? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. I'm fairly familiar with that "rule", Nicoljaus, having been an admin for over 12 years. I don't think the consensus favours your position, and neither does common sense. Throwing around accusations isn't the way to go here. As Martin says, if you suspect me of anything nefarious, AN/I is the route to take. Otherwise leave it on article talk, please. --John (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the consensus favours your position - have you any arguments for this besides the years of your adminship? The history of revisions attests against you.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, consensus isn't a head-count but have you tried counting the number of people who want to use Buk, and comparing it to the number who wish to use two names for it? You could use the fingers on each hand. Unless one number is a lot more than the other, you haven't got consensus. There's a lot more to consensus than counting, but it's always a good start. Do you still accuse me of meatpuppetry? Because if you do, we shouldn't be talking here but on AN/I. If you don't, a retraction is in order. --John (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You could use the fingers on each hand. - I will answer in your style - maybe you will try to use your head to understand what is going on in discussing your edits? It does not matter which terminology you like. It is important that the quoted sources used this, and not another term.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are little different, are not they? After 12 years of adminship it is not difficult to bring like-minded editors for the edit warring.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see, not just socks but real meat. But as John says, it's time to either retract or to name names, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Notice

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 Nicoljaus (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

Remembering fondly six years of helping each other, after meeting in sad circumstances. Wink mit dem Zaunpfahl: I have a FAC open (and a procrastinated one, and it's about Time, and time), and just read yesterday thanks for your copy-editing. Could you do that for me, and perhaps even a review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wilhelm Krüger

The article Wilhelm Krüger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It appears that this is a fake article, because that person never existed : he was confused with Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger at the time of his creation. It has just been deleted from French Wikipedia where it had been copied from English Wikipedia. Please see that discussion page : [17]. Best regards. Gkml

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gkml (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Advice wished, if possible

Hello again, John !
I'm having very unnecessary trouble with another user over a talk-page comment. I think he even removes signatures at his own talk-page. And comes with the most silly allegations I've ever experienced here. Just imagine - if I at talk-page of either Nicola Sturgeon , Mary, Queen of Scots or who ever historical Scottish celebrity (or the opposite of "celebrity"), had came up with missing information and had written "this article is too positive" (too negative if it was about "a bad guy")- would I then be "revealed Anti-Scottish bias" ?
Perhaps , you could have a brief look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Ukraine_1920,_Vilnius,_after_1926_a_fascistic_state._Too_positive_tone_for_this_status
And with your admin-tools, perhaps you can see weather this other user changes things not intended to be changed. If possible perhaps you also can have a look at this user's own talk-page. I think he removes signatures and other matters in order to hide earlier notes and warnings, and has even been asked not to do so. And this user is banned from at least one "heavy" topic, according to what he has replied to another user at his talk-page (WW2-polish_matters, I believe). Now he want's me to apologise, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boeing720#Confused.
What to do, I don't know. I just wish to get rid of him. There's no substance to what he writes. And if possible only. Boeing720 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope it receives the attention it warrants here. Could you possibly take a closer look at it John? I'm surprised that Boeing720 being six years(?) on Wiki makes such slips. Especially after being notified [18] that the comments he is answering are not mine but an IP user [19]. I would let it go seeing that he/she is clearly confused, but now an allegation of sockpuppetry (among other things) needs to be addressed. Could you John please tutor the user and additionally ask him to redirect his comments to the proper editor? Thanks. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

User Bruceeddie01

We have a problem with this user on the page Steve Hogarth who keeps changing the D.O.B. to conflict with the date we have a source for. Thanks.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Take care

Miss you. Miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not seen you in a while

Hope you all ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, hope all is well, and sending best wishes. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was recently reminded of our disagreement over Armando Iannucci and the People's Vote stuff, and I just realised that you haven't edited since my last response to you. I expect that the two are entirely unrelated, but just in case, I wanted to drop you a note to say that there's no grudge or anything on my part. I hope you come back and continue with your good work. Apologies for the intrusion if (as I expect) this is totally unrelated. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes

	Gothic Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best for x-mass, and hope all is well. Please drop me a line when you get a chance, as you are missed around here, and I worry. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2019 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your project help last year! How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

First Edit!

Hey, John. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! A 10 fireplane Imform me 16:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Technical error

Hello John ! I have apparently caused some awkward error by moving an article to a better name. But I can't get the talk-page moved correctly. I'm very sorry.
Could you please have a look this technical matter ? The article in question is Bridge related and is this one Benjamin Twos - but then look at the talk-page. I've truly tried. Sorry again. Boeing720 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Having a new look, it seems as I have moved the page (initially "Game Forcing Two Diamonds" to both "BenjaminTwos" and "Benjamin Twos". ( BenjaminTwos , Benjamin Twos) How to remove the first one, without the space, totally ? Sorry one more time. Boeing720 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(watching:) you enter {{db|explain why}} to request deletion on top of the article, giving a reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The error was initially next to disastrous, the talk-page was all wrong. But it works now. It had something to do with a forgotten space, I think. There is however no reason to have two articles "Benjamin Twos" and "BenjaminTwos". Hence the latter should be deleted totally, not redirected or moved. There is no way doing that but to ask for deletion ? But I will do as you have suggested, Gerda. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

But now the request is seen in the article. I copied {{db|explain why}} to the to of the article with wrong spelling, including an explanation. I'm not certain it should look that way, was expecting some template to be shown or something like that. Boeing720 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstanding, don't copy the nowiki, which only prevents John's page to be deleted if I had the template here. To my understanding, the following would work: delete (with the template) the redirect Benjamin Twos and then move the content (BenjaminTwos) to that name, then delete that resulting redirect (BenjaminTwos) or leave it, no harm). Calling Graham87, my expert for moves, but he'll sleep now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I requested the first deletion, explaining. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Boeing720, all looks good now. Please format those "bare urls" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The title without the space was so early-2001. :-) Graham87 02:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I thank you all for this help. It works fine now. Sorry for the troubles I've caused. And thanks again ! Boeing720 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I like to help, and this was easy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! It's me!

Got this bit of merde on my talk page just now....

'You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[WP:AC/DS#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic.'

What is this about? Sounds a tad threatening...Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello?

John, I didn't really realise, until a very short time ago, that I had not seen you editing since last September. I do hope every thing is just alright with you. I was recently reminded, by an erstwhile Bournemouth mystic hermit acquaintance of ours, that in the words of our glorious leader Mao Zed Wales we all here at Wiki Narnia have to "march or die". Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)