User talk:John/Archive 2014

	Happy New Year, 2014
	From Amandajm (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Bellini began work on a rather large "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" but having set up the models and commenced the painting, he soon found that he was in no fit state to continue it. At this point Titian stepped in. That's him on the extreme left. Bellini is sleeping it off under a bush.

Thanks! --John (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Ardenwood farm-026.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Concorde

You removed [1] from Concorde with the edit summary "Nothing here", but there seems to be a fairly extensive Website there. Please explain? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELNO for a summary of our policy on external links. I am cleaning up some of the inessential links that have accrued on this article. --John (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be clearer if your edit summaries didn't say something else entirely? Given the recent spate of drive-by IP edits, perhaps it would be better (where the page is not simply broken as with the Braniff one) to suggest it on the talk page? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you were not able to understand my edit summary. It seems clear enough to me that there is "nothing here" worth keeping, but I will certainly take your feedback into account when framing future edit summaries. --John (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• ^ That's basically how I took the "nothing here" edit summaries. I did not see much content on those web sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• They are hobbyist sites, and listing them on a Wikipedia article does more benefit to the external site than it does to our article. Per ELNO, we should not have links like this on our articles. --John (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Heather Mills

I just wanted to thank/congratulate you on the splendid work you are doing and have done on the Heather Mills article. Do please keep an eye on it though as, having contributed to it extensively myself, you may be shocked at the trolls who post vicious and vile things on it constantly. Manxwoman (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. --John (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Erskine bridge

Hi. I just wanted to say thanks for all your help and patience on the article. I could really do with picking up some tips from you. Thanks. Discolover18 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thank you in turn for all the hard work you have done. I hope I can persuade you to improve some of our other bridge articles. --John (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's it more or less done now, just a map needed, i asked where you said, no joy yet though. I was wondering if you could check over the article again for me. I was wanting you to do that dates and web links thing again. This: (Filling in 10 references using Reflinks, date formats per WP:MOSNUM by script) I don't know how to do it. I did add another 2 links so if they are staying i would be really happy if you could do that for me, or show me how to do it. Thanks again. Discolover18 (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw your post at the project; I might ask a few people I know if they can help. As for the other, just go to WP:REFLINKS, type or paste in the article name and the script will do the rest. I can do the dates thing for you, it needs a script that I have installed. --John (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I tried that WP:REFLINKS, i don't know how to do it. I'm totally crap at this at times, sorry. Discolover18 (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's footery, isn't it? I took care of it for you. --John (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Hi John. On the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role article, the user HesioneHushabye (talkpage here talk) has persisted in providing false information about the award, blatantly ignored the official bafta site that I provided which shows that Best British actress, and Best Foreign actress were two categories awarded up to 1968, and has created an award (best actress) that did not exist between 1952 to 1967. I restored the correct information that existed on the page prior to his arbitrary intervention. I assumed good faith edits at the beginning and explained the best actress article should provide the same correct information that the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role does. The fact the user has continued to vandalise the page has left to to call for admin intervention. Thanks.— Chie one (talk) 18:55, 10 Jan 2014 (UTC) The BAFTA page has been the same since I over-hauled it over a year ago and no one has had any issues with it. The category is clearly explained at the top of the page and the user above keeps changing my work instead of opening a discussion on the talk page. HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

the user has ignored the fact there were TWO categories (Best British Actress, Best Foreign Actress) from 1952 to 1967, and has instead omitted Best British Actress, and left Best Foreign Actress in among the Best Actress award (which was created in 1968 when both British and Foreign awards were merged). See the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role, the Best Actress page should be a replica of that. The user has arbitrarily made up his own category, ignoring all the correct information provided and the official Bafta site itself. — Chie one (talk) 19:20, 10 Jan 2014

I've protected. Please discuss in talk. --John (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |birth_place = [[New Orleans]], Louisiana]], <br />United States

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BB for drawing my attention to this error. --John (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Middle Ages

To be honest - I'm about to walk away from the article. Someone needs to do something before I just decide to unwatchlist the article and it starts deteriorating.THIS sort of pandering to nationalistic crap is why articles on big subjects don't get improved. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If I were you Ealdgyth I'd have walked away ages ago. Either that or exploded. What we lowly editors are expected to put up with is quite unreasonable. Eric Corbett 14:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look, I agree with you. Of course, I cannot even think of using my admin tools here. I am just a lowly editor like yourselves in this instance. Nevertheless I will help in any way I can. --John (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not that worried about admin tools... I'm just tired of the WP:IDHT behavior and the endless talk page posts. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made a comment at article talk that I hope will be of some use. I have a huge watchlist; don't hesitate to ping me again if things are escalating and I don't seem to notice. --John (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look. Thank you. --John (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, great! Thank you so much, — Cirt (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: John Barrowman

Your latest edits removed sourced and cited content and replaced it with citation needed tags. This is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the edit in conjunction with WP:BLPSOURCES which forbids us from adding material sourced to tabloids. I absolutely stand by this edit; BLP is one of our few solid rules here and it exists to safeguard the project and the subjects of our articles. Let me also be clear that I made this edit in an admin capacity. I suggest you reread policy and the edit and you will see I am right. --John (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your are sadly mistaken. You have removed reliably sourced content and added citation needed tags. You apparently did not do any due diligence and attempt to verify the material and sources. The Daily Mail material has nothing to do with this. I'm waiting for you to open a discussion on the talk page so I can correct your mistakes, but it looks like you are only capable of edit warring and making threats to use your tools as an involved admin. You've made an incredible number of mistakes here and I'm waiting for you to discuss them. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Really? It seems we disagree. The onus is on you to join the talk page discussion I have started and show me where my "incredible number of mistakes" are. I look forward to seeing you there. --John (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You will see me there when I get home, at which point I will show how you removed verified material and failed to look at the cited sources while edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, I shall await your reasoned arguments eagerly. --John (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I-470 FAC

If you have a chance, can you respond back to the comments re: your oppose on my FAC? Thanks in advance. --AdmrBoltz 13:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look later today. --John (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Suicide

This may need oversight or rev delete. BB might need counseling on so casually throwing around predicting/taunting suicide issues. 202.4.114.18 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it's been dealt with. Thanks for noticing. --John (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid

Good day John. One of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose, suggested I contact you before relisting this article. His advice was here, right at the end, and went as follows:

Closing comment -- This has been open six weeks now without approaching consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. It does appear that the article has improved since its first FAC so I'd encourage you to return here after the usual two-week break between FAC nominations. I'd also recommend, if you haven't already done so at some stage, inviting Squeamish Ossifrage and John to look over the article prior to that (sort of an informal peer review) to get their take on its readiness for another go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you in a position to help please? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: Not sure what has happened to Squeamish Ossifrage; appears to be incommunicado.

Be happy to take a look. --John (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Thank you for your edits to the lede. I'd now like to relist this article as a FAC. Do you have any further concerns about it? . Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm sorry this dropped off my radar. I will look some time today. --John (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had a good read of it. I think it will take a proper copyedit to pass FAC. I can look at it tonight or early tomorrow. Hope that is some help. --John (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be most welcome. Please let me know if I can help. Sandbh (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mainly just wordsmithing, it is much improved from when I last looked at it. It will be tomorrow now but I am sure I can do something. Thanks for the ping and well done on the progress on the article. --John (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a small chop at it. I think I could still do more. What do you think so far? --John (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please also see this and this edits to templates transcluded on the page. --John (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --John (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Gage and EEng

After spending more than 30 hours researching Phineas Gage, I've come to a clear conclusion that EEng has a COI and a non-neutral POV to push. The COI on personal, academic and possible financial motives for the views expressed at Phineas Gage carry on a "thinly disguised vendetta against other Gage experts and the frequent aspersions cast on their scholarship … [and] motives." and "[MacMillan's] attack on a social constructionist view of history that allegedly disregards facts..." I've taken the matter to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I believe that EEng's COI should prevent him from editing the article directly. He may be an expert on the matter, but such is true with the Cold fusion topic area and Scientology. I believe you have also tried to address the baroque prose and information layout, I have Macmillan's book on hand and the article's references do not match the claims made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you are frustrated at that article. I agree with you it would be better for all if User:EEng could step away from the article as he has become too close to it and his idea of good writing certainly doesn't match mine. Other than engage in dispute resolution (as you have done) or walking away (as I have done) I do not know what to suggest. Are there any other good sources? Sometimes that can break a log-jam like this one. Sorry I can't be more help. --John (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Macmillan 2000 is a collection of almost all primary documents including several which Wikipedia does not consider RSes. I particularly like how the undertaker's record not only gets Gage's name wrong and omits his full age (unlike all others), but the Corsini Encyclopedia and Fleischmann's book which EEng portrays as a children's book contains a detailed account of the exhumation and who was present, to which the article currently states as "(Though some accounts[23][24][25] assert that Gage's iron was buried with him, there is no evidence for this.)" Which is lovely when you have 3 sources cited as stating it, and another more detailed account not cited. Though, what can I really do? EEng doesn't balance the fact that both records have to be wrong for their theory to be correct - both Harlow and the undertaker records. A lovely theory when Gage died at the family's house and they could not spell his name correctly and didn't know his birth date. And secondly, when Harlow got the account later, got the dates wrong by a year, and Macmillan adjusted every date to match. Questionable at minimum. Also, Dr. Gene Bont, found proof that Gage did in fact promote himself as a curiosity. This is absent. I am really more concerned about what is not in the article instead of what is. And that which is, is not a neutral POV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a NPOV problem at this article. I agree that EEng likely has a COI in editing this article. I also don't think EEng is nearly as good a writer as he thinks he is. Unfortunately, none of this stuff is really actionable; Gage is not a living person and is unlikely to complain that we write badly or inaccurately about him. So DR is the way to go; please ping me if you plan to raise this again centrally. --John (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I would further advise you to at least take a break from engaging with him and from the article. It can't be good for you and there is a lot of other stuff to do on here. --John (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

True, some of EEng's comments, implying I am a mental patient or a subject of study are degrading. I don't like the refactoring of my talk page posts and I shouldn't have to tolerate someone reinserting and refactoring my text to mock me either. I suppose I should do a few more GAs. While I wait for DR or perhaps mediation ( a suggestion given the complex nature) to begin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would you object to an AN topic ban thread? The situation continues to deteriorate with EEng. Like "There can no longer be any doubt that you, "ChrisGualtieri", are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll—​doesn't matter which." The most widespread error in the dating was made by Macmillan, I say it must be noted - so others don't read the source and find it wrong as well. EEng may work for Macmillan, but keeping such a major error out is bad. The text was clear and confident, see for yourself. Even Macmillan's "correction" is ambiguous about record and its detailing. Such a mistake needs to be communicated via a note if not directly in the text - its widespread. I question why every source, including Harlow, gets the details wrong, but that's another matter. Though if EEng is unable to restrain or control himself, then he should not be editing the article - he couldn't figure out that none of 483 "Shy" templates were working and made a fuss over its removal. He's got a COI and OWN issues in spades. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that might be a good idea. Whether it will gain traction or not it will at least get other eyes onto the matter. Be aware that all editors' conduct will be examined. --John (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
    • True, but I have clearly stated my position and reiterated it twice more if EEng could not understand it, being more explicit in each case only for EEng to respond in big and bold: "Again, as seen above you are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll. I won't respond to your posts in the future, except as necessary to prevent their misleading editors who may not understand the nature of you activities here." I'll ask an uninvolved admin because I think EEng is violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by repeatedly calling me a "hopeless incompetent or a troll". An formal "drama thread" at AN may not be needed with the COI, OWN and NPA issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I've asked EEng how they would prefer to deal with it. --John (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added myself. Thank you for the invitation. --John (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, excellent, thanks for joining out WikiProject! — Cirt (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no freedom of speech here, and there never will be while the Californians are in charge. I recall being blocked for referring to an unnamed editor as an "admin wannabee". Not the worst insult in the world, but an indicator of where WP has gone wrong. Criticism and disagreement are banned, only hearty congratulatory black slapping is allowed. Eric Corbett 21:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

True. I sense another wiki-break coming on as I am feeling a bit unappreciated. I am sure the project will stagger on without me. Of course, we don't have Freedom of Speech (in a constitutional sense) in our United Kingdom, it's an American thing. I think when I saw someone (presumably an adult) at that TFA discussion use the phrase "the F-bomb", my wiki-morale slipped below the water line. It's been heading that way for a while now. --John (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Mine too. Eric Corbett 21:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally a week or two away and I recharge. This is maybe going to be a longer break. The shit:good things ratio is getting too high. --John (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP will continue trundling along to wherever it's trundling on to, regardless of what you or I might choose to do. We can't change anything, even though much needs to be changed. Eric Corbett 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Colin MacIntyre

In case I forget, thanks for doing loads of work on this article - the referencing in particular. At some point I might have a bit of time to see what else can be found and see what there might be to add - well, maybe anyway :-) Cheers Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Aw, that's nice of you, thank you for noticing. I have pretty much run out of steam for now. If you can find anything else I would be interested. His dad should probably have an article too. --John (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's done. His dad was far more notable than his brother or sister-in-law. Interesting story. --John (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at WP:AN. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you will be fine. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. The new article looks good. --John (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

Thanks John.[2] I'd just like to be left alone for a few days to try and transform this pig's ear into a sow's purse. I know that's an ultimately futile effort given WP's "anyone can edit" philosophy, but at least I'll have tried. Eric Corbett 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, good luck with that. Have you seen this travesty? --John (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd dread to look at that. Think I'll stick to the authors of children's books for now. Eric Corbett 23:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad time when even the supposed best of our articles are mired in sludge, and we have users arguing with a straight face to use tabloid sources on living people. --John (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So what's new? "Anyone can edit" has much to answer for. Eric Corbett 23:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It's been our blessing and our curse. We've both been around long enough to see it change as well. Do you think it is worse than it was when we started? Or have we just become older and more cynical? Or both? --John (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't around in the earliest days, when WP was obviously desperately short of content and had to do whatever was required to get some. But those days were gone before you and I became involved, yet the attitude still pervades the project. And that's the problem; WP doesn't now need more content, it needs better content. Eric Corbett 23:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Although I did write a rather interesting new article yesterday, in general I do agree we should be improving what we have, not producing huge amounts of new content. --John (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've created a few new articles myself, 132 at the last count, the most recent of which is the magnificent North Western Gas Board. Eric Corbett 00:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice one. Hey, don't let the bastards grind you down; that thread at talk:Jimbo was nauseating and my gut reaction would've been the same. Here's mine; bloody interesting story I thought. --John (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. --John (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I have read the discussion and may comment there. --John (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your support during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Also, thank you for recognizing a certain comment for what it was. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

protection of page

Hi. Thank you for protect an article about Serbs, but you should return to version before the request.[3] Also you see the talk page.--Sokac121 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian-Slovak something

Hi, thanks for your admin work. I haven't followed in much detail but this edit warring case seems to have other strands to it. The editor of the two whom you warned nearly tipping over 3RR rather than blocked has put in a move request at Talk:Sámuel Mikoviny "Today he is the pride of both the Hungarian and Slovak nations" which the other editor (the Hungarian editor who did tip over 3RR and you did block) had worked on and moved back in 2010. This has now been complicated by appearance of an evidently not new user as IP with no edit history in support. Time signature 11:25 onwards. As you are familiar with the background, would you mind taking a closer look. I'm not familiar with either editor or with Hungarian/Slovak issues, but something seems afoot. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

just noticed this also. Sorry this information is in dribs and drabs, only half an eye on it. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I am not necessarily familiar with the background, although I suspected this might be controversial. Let me know if you see that editor doing anything else even slightly resembling edit-warring and I will block them. Also, isn't there an Arbcom restriction in place in that area? --John (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. But I'm sorry, since not my area I don't know re Arbcom restrictions, at least I can't see anything related to Kingdom of Hungary in Category:Wikipedia articles under general sanctions. And I don't think the Romania IP 86.126.34.194 is related to the Slovakia editor. But 86.126.34.194 comes from Craiova, as most of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iaaasi. It's evidently someone's sock. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Found it, it's WP:ARBEE. --John (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback request

Hi John,

I was wondering if you'd be willing to continue your review of the writing in the amphetamine article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive2. I also want to apologize for coming off slightly confrontational in my initial response; I was a bit stressed that day.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course. --John (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw this and thought of you....

Was Jimi Hendrix murdered by his manager? "It was said [Hendrix manager Michael Jeffery] had worked for British intelligence and that he could speak fluent Russian." Another shining example of "quality" journalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. In a strange and maybe worrying sense I actually quite enjoy these semi-fictional speculative accounts of real events. But they sometimes cause damage or distress to living people, and use the libel court as their clarifications and corrections process. Imagine if we wrote Wikipedia articles based on these! --John (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen worse..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That's astonishing. --John (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

At least it was a guy who has been dead a few years, for whatever difference that makes. I took a wee hack at it, hope you don't mind. --John (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

More vandalism from TheDoctor660

Hi. Since you gave TheDoctor660 the final warning for vandalism, I thought I'd report his latest act of vandalism to you. Nightscream (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --John (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

ani close

Re your ANI close; it's my belief there really isn't a content dispute, as there was an RFC last August Talk:Soccer_in_Australia/Archive_3 that pretty definitely settled the issue, and those editors proposing changing it are essentially trying to develop a local consensus to override wp:commonname. I understand that's likely not obvious from the huge wall o' text on the Soccer in Australia talk page, but if you filter out comments about other editors and people repeating themselves (which means about 95% of the words there). You are, of course, welcome to make your own assessment if you have time to waste on it. Or ask the Drmies for their assessment of the content situation. NE Ent 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, yes and no. HiLo actually said in that discussion that consensus can change, but it's not likely to change this way. Thanks for closing it, John. I wish HiLo, though, would realize that what he got in that thread (which was that the others basically got a slap on the wrist) was the most he was going to get. The more HiLo stays mum and doesn't complain, the more credit he builds up. Anyway. Ent, and John, thanks again. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. --John (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48s recent position of "I don't like it" is nothing more than a facile personal attack

As seen Here and I'm completely sick of this user using wikipedia regulations to game the system on Wikipedia:NPA. If you read the talk page on Soccer in Australia you'll also see his previous behaviour of hiding behind Wikipedia:Competence is required to call other users that challenge his nonsense behaviour incompetent. This is a very long line of infractions over many years that I am quite simply fed up with administrators doing nothing about --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked and then retired since leaving this message. I am truly sorry as I would have preferred that that be avoided. I can see no good reason why naming should be discussed there so soon after an RfC. I will have zero-to-little tolerance for anyone who is misbehaving in this area. --John (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We shall see if Orestes stays retired once his block expires. However, I hope you realise that it was not HiLo48 that was trying to change the naming in contradiction of the consensus attained during that RFC. I find it more than a little ironic for Orestes to be complaining about gaming the system. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We shall indeed. There are always two sides (at least) to every story. I am well aware of who was doing what on that discussion. It can be frustrating if you think you are making good arguments and someone else keeps repeating boilerplated links. I think for now it will be good to take a break from this discussion. It isn't urgent. When we come back to it, we will all need to work extra hard to be civil, and discuss the ideas and not the person. --John (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed that this kind of harassment of administrators around here is deemed as appropriate behaviour --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't feel like I am being harassed here. Thanks for thinking of me. --John (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Galileo

Your "Quote of the Month" on your user page is a particularly useful one. It reinforces something similar from Plato, where he quotes Socrates in Gorgias: SOCRATES: You, Gorgias, like myself, have had great experience of disputations, and you must have observed, I think, that they do not always terminate in mutual edification, or in the definition by either party of the subjects which they are discussing; but disagreements are apt to arise—somebody says that another has not spoken truly or clearly; and then they get into a passion and begin to quarrel, both parties conceiving that their opponents are arguing from personal feeling only and jealousy of themselves, not from any interest in the question at issue. And sometimes they will go on abusing one another until the company at last are quite vexed at themselves for ever listening to such fellows. Why do I say this? Why, because I cannot help feeling that you are now saying what is not quite consistent or accordant with what you were saying at first about rhetoric. And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute—for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter—let us make an end of it. Both Galileo and Socrates were very familiar with "those sort of fellows", who held their own beliefs steadfast against all reason. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the further quote and I am glad you enjoyed mine. Some things never change. --John (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Peru national football team FAC

Hello John. The article you reviewed (Peru national football team), went through a major copy-edit based on your recommendation. Could you please provide a new review of it based on the changes? Ian plans to close the nomination on Friday/Saturday, so your comments would be much welcomed. Thanks!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I will have another look tonight. --John (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much friend. I look forward to it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Commented tonight as promised. I think we can do it. --John (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

I am trying to get some reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics/archive2. It had an earlier nomination but failed for lack of reviewers. If you could take a few minutes to post even a short review, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks for asking. --John (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning

Personal attack

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.

---

Look here.

That's obviously a direct personal attack on me. Given that this editor was already blocked for similar personal attacks when he wrote that post, this simply cannot be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it can. We traditionally give blocked editors leeway to vent at their talk page. If he does this again after his block expires I will block again, for longer and longer until he either stops doing it or gets blocked indef. Either way we solve the problem. --John (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So right now, you're happy to leave an attack on me (and many others) sitting there unchallenged? I don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's sitting on the talk page of a blocked editor. When you were blocked, didn't you ever lash out in anger? If you didn't, good for you. I am serious, it is time to stop looking for reasons to take offence and complain about unequal treatment. This is what equal treatment looks like; I am truly indifferent as to the naming used in these articles, but I have an interest in helping you guys to sort out your dispute. Let me do it; trust me as I trust you to act in the best interests of the project. Macktheknifeau is blocked; stop looking at his talk page. I will do that for you. I am watching all the players and if you see more incivility that you think I have missed please ping me again. I decline to take further action against Macktheknifeau at this time. Let's stay positive; I bet that on 1 April we are not still having these arguments. Wouldn't that be worth it? --John (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not now? The problems are not new. The repeated insults from blocked and recently blocked editors are not new. The dishonesty is not new. By restricting conversation right now you are allowing untrue statements to stand as facts on your Talk page. It might all be new to you, but it's not to me. This process is not pleasant. And it has all been said before, for years. It should be obvious to anyone who can be bothered researching this a bit for themselves where the problems lie here. How are you going to sift the truth from the lies anyway? Do it now, please. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't enact a consensus where the meaning and implications of the previous consensus are being reasonably challenged, which, once you strip out all the anger, is what's happening. Once we finish the process everyone will know what's what and there will be no more conflict. If you help me, I am confident we can get there by 1 April. I'm sorry you're finding it stressful, but it really can't be rushed. It's been festering for years, so what's a month now? --John (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm truly curious. You have conflicting claims of fact. How do you intend to determine what is true? HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I can write a decent RfC to clarify the previous one. That's what I am doing above, and you are all helping me with. A good RfC has a clear and neutrally-worded question; what do you think the question should be? I'll launch the RfC on Friday, unless it's possible to get there earlier. --John (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, stop playing the man and play the ball here John is going out of the way here to offer a civilised forum where we can discuss what is the issue here and avoid more unnecessary nonsense. I would advise for the sake of your own sanity after many years of going round in circles with different editors that you respect the olive branch that is being offered here for a mediated discussion before this gets to ARBCOM and it winds up with a result that no one is happy with. You have your chance to actually flesh out what is a well thought out answer here and not just a single sentence. It is not beyond you to think a bit more rationally. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for telling the world that you don't believe I think rationally enough. I cannot comprehend how John can allow such nonsense, especially from someone who has just come off a block. John, please stop this. Now. I cannot have a civilised conversation with a person who says I have to think more rationally. I'm pretty sure you gave Orestes a "final warning" yesterday. And now he declares that I need to think a bit more rationally. I already think very poorly of a lot of Admins here. If you don't do anything about that, you will have lost my respect completely too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is taking "personal attacks" a bridge too far when there was no intention of one, you know and everyone else knows what I meant. You've spent many hours supporting your position. I was stating that you should use this opportunity wisely and not get wound up by other editors here. You can choose to interpret that with ill will but it's not me that is offering any malice here. Moreover my comments that were removed were broad enough that it requires anyone to selectively interpret what I was saying in order to come to any conclusion it was about them in particular. I do not want to pick fights here so I'd suggest we both leave it at that. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

John issued you a FINAL warning. Then you said I need to think a bit more rationally. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I was writing that post as John was closing the thread, so I was unaware of his action. I want my post to stay. I feel I am being let down appallingly by administrator behaviour here. John, I am not fighting. It must be someone else. And precisely what IS a FINAL warning? HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2014 (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.

Juggalos (gang)

You locked the article because a single editor was fighting everyone over his personal interpretation of BLP. His contention was that the article was labeling the 2 men as killers but that they hadn't been tried. Well, they have been. In 2011, both were found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. The BLP issue he perceived is now moot. The article should be unlocked so the info can be correctly restored (and updated). Could you take care of that? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The clear and unequivocal violation of WP:BLP policy by Niteshift36 is not 'moot'. I suggest that you read the thread on WP:ANI, where Niteshift36 makes clear that he either doesn't understand policy, or thinks it doesn't apply to him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• This request is about unlocking the article. Don't litter it with your attempts to save face. You removed the material because you claimed it was a BLP issue. We now know they were convicted and sentenced 3 years ago. The BLP concern is now void. If you want to piss and moan about what you think the policy says, then go back to ANI and stop clouding this discussion. I'm talking about the article going forward. You're still stuck in the past. Get over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of the merits of this content dispute I have blocked Niteshift36 for the leg-humping comment at AN/I. For the article to be unprotected I would need to see evidence that there is an agreement among the disputants about what it should say. Is there? --John (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot more to this dispute than a single paragraph regarding the murder of Michael Goucher. The fundamental problem is that the article was created by User:AnnerTown (original subject of the ANI thread), who clearly doesn't understand Wikipedia policy on original research, synthesis, proper sourcing, and above all WP:BLP regarding such basic issues as the presumption of innocence. This in an article describing murders and other serious criminal offences allegedly carried out by 'Juggalos' - fans of the Insane Clown Posse, some of whom are alleged to be members of organised gangs. My initial run-in with Niteshift36 was over the still unresolved issue of much of the article being cited to material supposedly derived from law enforcement agencies, but in practice being unverifiable documents anonymously hosted on filehosting websites. Niteshift36 has claimed that the documents are genuine, and published, but has repeatedly failed to provide proper publication details (see Talk:Juggalos (gang) for the latest non-appearance of the supposed citation details). I forget how exactly I got involved, but it has always been my position that an article on such a serious topic ought to be properly sourced, and compliant with Wikipedia policy. That is all that I've asked. I've got no particular interest in 'Juggalos', gang members or otherwise, and if I've ever heard the Insane Clown Posse's music I've no recollection of it. Were it not for the fact that WP:BLP policy has been flagrantly disregarded in the article, I'd never have got involved in the first place. The article needs serious attention from someone prepared to deal with the sourcing issues properly, and treat the subject with the attention it deserves, with due regard to neutrality, and avoiding the sensationalist trawling of the web for every mention of alleged criminality involving supposed 'Juggalos' - not least because there is (or was, last I heard) an ongoing legal case between representatives of the 'Posse' and the FBI over the portrayal of innocent music fans as criminals. It seems clear that there are organised gangs calling themselves 'Juggalos', and that such gangs have engaged in serious criminality, but that doesn't justify the indiscriminate Google-mining, synthesis and misrepresentation of sources which has gone on to construct the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• How about if we stop re-hashing history and get to today. The material you edit warred over has been proven. It is no longer in dispute. Can you give any valid reason why it should not be put back into the article? I'm not asking about your opinions about me, something that happened weeks ago or any other nonsense you want to use to derail the issue. Why should this material be kept out? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please familiarise yourself with WP:3RR - violations of WP:BLP are expressly exempt from edit-warring policy. And cut out the snide comments - I have made it entirely clear that my objections to the Juggalo (gang) article concern improper sourcing, and since this has been settled regarding this issue, a paragraph concerning the Goucher murder can of course be added. There is however the issue of the unverifiable uploaded documents to be resolved - You stated almost two months ago that you were going to deal with this, but I see nothing has been done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am familiar with it, thank you. You had at least 3 other editors disputing the BLP issue. Just saying "BLP" doesn't give you an automatic pass to revert forever. It really doesn't work that way. If you felt that strongly about it, you should have gone to BLPN about it to try to get support for your position. However, this discussion is not about any other issue. I made that clear. But you can't help yourself. I will not further litter this man's page with responses to issues I didn't come here to discuss. Do try to stay on point for a change. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey John

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.

---

How is this edit, not completely uncivil? I really don't want to go around in circles with this and I think as I said above we should remain on topic but part of that is keeping things civil here, looking at things logically and desisting from comments that could be interpreted purely as being hostile towards one side of the argument here--Orestes1984 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Part of getting along here is learning when to ignore people who are saying things you don't like. I wish you and HiLo48 could do that more. Please, let's focus on the solution, not look for reasons to fight. --John (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2014 (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.

The bickering is the problem

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 gave a FINAL warning. It was breached. Providing no follow-up guarantees that the bickering will continue. How can I have faith in a process where YOUR words don't mean what they say? HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to trust me here. I am not going to block for that. I am sorry if you don't like that. See the section just above; bickering, once established, is a hard habit to break. Try to ignore minor incivility. --John (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should I trust you? I WAS putting my faith in you to sort this out. You gave a FINAL warning. You won't follow up. Again, why should I trust you? What on earth does FINAL mean? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been showing good faith here. What have I got in return? More insults and weak administration? Do try to put yourself in my position. I have not breached any rules or instructions. I have got nothing in return. I have lost faith in this process. It's becoming much harder to be constructive. Did you note the brevity of my most recent response above? You are not supporting me. Do you think I can be bothered trying harder? HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you are upset. It is up to you if you want to withdraw from the process. If you see more insults, please ping me. --John (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're still watching though, what were the three RfCs you mentioned above? --John (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This type of behaviour is exactly why so many editors have ongoing problems with HiLo48... I have been stating this for long enough, and if HiLo is going to complain about my 2 blocks in the last 8 years vs. his countless LONG infractions because he simply will not listen to the directive of administrators around here, he's going to wind up blocked again. This is exactly the type of behaviour that leads me consistently to being fed up with this editor and this place... I'm sick of acting passively while we have a 300lb gorilla in the room John... Even when I do act passively I get put in a position where I am charged with falsely offensive behaviour... This has gone on for more than long enough... --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, you seriously both need to cool it. Telling someone to act more rationally isn't very helpful, but neither is it a personal attack. Just answer the questions as best you can and leave rest to me. If you have energy left over, try to use it to imagine a compromise that would leave everyone happy, or as close to that as we can get. What would that look like? Now, HiLo, I asked you a question about RfCs above. Other than that, I don't want to continue this here. John (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

John, surely you realise by now that I see nothing wrong with the three RfCs we've already had. They weren't line ball calls. The results were 100% clear. The process each time was perfectly correct. Asking us to go through it all again is not a pleasant thought. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about what you see, or what any one other individual sees for that matter and it's not how wikipedia works, this is a community and part of that is respecting the fact that people are entitled to hold views that are wildly different from your own rather than simply proclaiming based upon your or anyone elses's own gesticulation and flapping of hands around in the air, that you're right and everyone else is wrong. As you were told elsewhere, let due process take its course and if I or anyone else here IS wrong, there is no harm done. The real problem here in all of this situation is that there has been no chance for discussion of anything anyone here has stated yet. I don't think that's fair, and I don't think it's reasonable to fillibuster discussion with pointless claims of non-existent personal attacks.

The last move process was on the discussion of whether to move the article to football in Australia which has nothing to do with anything that I am suggesting and not much to do with what other editors are suggesting here. I'm personally not even suggesting an RFC at this very moment, I'm just using this as a fair and open ground to state my case. What we do need to do is have a discussion without people telling us all why we shouldn't and I think it's fair time you respected that. My discussion here has been and remains civil, there has been no personal attacks directed at anyone, I suggest you play the ball and not the man. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't regard being told I need "to think a bit more rationally" as a terribly civil comment. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read a few articles on appeals to logic rather than appeals to emotion. You are creating a Gorgias like figure out of a mole hill... --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2014 (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.

You may not be aware of this

HiLo48 and Pete are subject to an IBAN, the terms of which were modified recently as a result of Pete's actions trying to get around the edges of the IBAN. See here, particularly the closing comments. Pete's at it again with his recent post to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning, making it more than little difficult for HiLo48 to post there. I am not an admin, please take the appropriate action. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't defend this particularly after I asked Pete on my talk page to stay away from this discussion, I've taken his side in the past and asked him not to go there, I've stated my case to him. If he wants to game the system like that then he can lay in the bed he's made for himself --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. No I was not aware of the interaction ban. Yes, I agree it scuppers Pete's further participation in the discussion. --John (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Responding here to the message on my talk page. I'll respect your request. I think there's a lot to be said for enforced civility and following the facts as opposed to taking a stick to other editors - the Argumentum ad baculum. Thanks for providing a shining example. --Pete (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John, if I may

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.

---

There is no need for HiL048s continuos ill will towards everybody that takes up a contrary position to what he does... This type of behaviour is nothing new and yet consistently administrators let him loose again and again to say whatever he feels like and most recently let loose a barrage of hostility towards yourself both here and on other users talk pages as well as myself.

I've done my time for what I felt was an appropriate comment, I'm pretty much more than fed up with the lack of any administrators response towards this behaviour... At this point an AN/I or RFC/U is absolutely pointless as it is only going to resolve the point that HiLo can do whatever he feels like doing and come back guilt free to do it again. How this user is let free again and again to act out like this really is beyond any reasonable explanation. It's almost completely explicable that he is even allowed to edit here at all --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(moved from discussion page) The 2004 decision is the point John based on substantial weight of evidence that should not be ignored simply because certain editors here are heavy handed with their responses. My previous response to a certain editor was out of pure frustration that after multiple infractions for the same type of behaviour that this editor was not called up for it. I've been here 8 years and never once have I had to put up with an editor that is given such weight to bully and harass users into submission and that is exactly why I have placed myself in this position. I am losing faith that Wikipedia sanctions mean anything quite frankly, that when even after a user has been warned about this type of behaviour and received countless excessive blocks they are allowed to return to acting in exactly the same manner. It seems administrators didn't get the point so I was left previously to state it in my own openly frank way. My count them if you will, two infractions, over 8 years are simply as a result directly that this has been allowed to go on for so long... I'm fed up with administrators who let this editor loose again and again to say whatever they feel like that if not verge on crossing the line, explicitly step over it. This is why I decided to also leave this place in the first place --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (end of moved text)

Noted both comments. I may reply more substantively when I have time. --John (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that. Let's see. We have "HiL048s continuos ill will towards everybody that takes up a contrary position", "say whatever he feels like", "a barrage of hostility", "multiple infractions for the same type of behaviour", and "bully and harass". Wow! HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your input here again and neither did anyone else at this stage --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

True. But John did invite us to his Talk page, and when I saw my name up there I just couldn't resist reading about me. I'm glad I did. it was fascinating. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John invited us here to mediate this nonsense, you seem consciously unwilling to refrain from creating more drama or actually to discuss anything with those that don't hold the same view as yourself, or with well reasoned "anti-soccer" editors. You seem to believe that these editors hold the view that they do simply because they don't like the word soccer rather than listening to the weight of evidence or doing your own research on the historical divisiveness of the term, the cultural divide in this country, the collapse of the NSL and soccer Australia, the Crawford report or the reasons why soccer became so problematic. You seem to believe that the weight of your opinion is worth more than the weight of evidence that shows a clear administrative decision that was made in order to end all of this nonsense. You seem not to believe the same problems do not exist with "old soccer" that the governing body of the sport decided existed after an in depth commissioned report, otherwise known as the Crawford report. You seem to believe I am putting this case forward simply because I don't like the word soccer. Pretty much nothing could actually be any further from the truth. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I think it would be fair to say that there is more than a touch of irony to Orestes1984's comments here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no one asked you for your in depth analysis of a discussion you've only stumbled on either. I'm pretty sure sticking your nose in front of a barking dog does nothing to help either your or anyone elses cause here either. I'm pretty sure if you wanted to actually help out here rather than throwing rocks at barking dogs you might actually spend a little time with a cup of coffee to actually read through what the problem is here rather than coming here to make declarative statements that only serve to create more tension than is necessary. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Orestes, you have every right, if you wish, to ask people to leave your own Talk page alone, but this is John's talk page. Others have as much right as you to comment here, until John says otherwise. As for your repeat history lesson on soccer, doesn't that history apply to all of Australia? Yet, in Aussie Rules territory, "soccer" is used as the natural name of the game today, by fans and players. I know many such people. Schools such as mine, that have many representative soccer teams, call the game precisely that, "soccer". Why are the feelings on the name so intensely negative where you come from, but so positive where I live? HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a long and in depth report outlining the state of and the health of the game that was commissioned in 2004. You seem willing to offer your popular opinion and hearsay about the fanfare of soccer but that doesn't really represent the position of those who explicitly support the FFA and the decision deemed necessary by the Crawford report, the Australian government (indirectly) so as not to see us expelled from FIFA (again) and those who are broadly part of the "football fraternity" within Australia. I'm also pretty sure that A-League players call the game football and I'm also actually pretty sure that the National Premiere League that is also about to come online also calls the game football as do all administrative levels of the game, I'm pretty sure, I've been through this with you and while you seem to suggest that there are countless fans that call the game soccer. I'm pretty sure the majority who attend and support the A-League, and Australia internationally and watch football regularly know that the official statement is otherwise. You seem to believe what your mates call soccer in the park is relevant to what the administrative and governmental decision is to call the game football... There is a long list of evidence that you are ignoring simply because it doesn't agree with your perspective. As with everything there is more than one way of looking at things and I'm pretty sure based on the weight of evidence there is more than a substantial argument to support my position. I'm pretty sure that it is a lot more thought out and rational than most of the people you seem to have problems discussing this with --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your statements here and elsewhere about the state of affairs is that your apparent position seems drawn entirely from within the soccer fraternity. I don't doubt that many people (although nowhere near the majority) think as you do. However, I would also suggest that they are almost exclusively from within the that same soccer community. You grudgingly admit to the state of affairs in other southern states where soccer is the common word, but you gloss over the fact that except for those within the soccer community the situation is in fact much the same in NSW and Queensland. Ask anyone who is not a soccer fan what would they mean if they said they were going to watch the football. It won't be soccer. Sadly for your position, soccer does not command any sort of majority following in NSW and QLD, nor indeed any other state in Australia. Rugby league is by far and away the most popular form of football in NSW and QLD and the word football is understood by the overwhelming majority there to mean rugby league, in much the same way that the word football means Aussie rules in the southern states. Ask the average Australian what is "Association football" and you'll get a "huh?" response. I am quite sure you are acting with the best of intentions but you are mistaken in your apparent belief that soccer is supported by the majority of Australians above the other football codes. We may well barrack for the Socceroos, even have a favourite team from the UK or the European league (mine is Arsenal) and even have a passing interest in the A league, but it is only a secondary interest, and most Aussies probably would not even notice if soccer was no longer played here. It simply does not command the level of support you seem to think it does amongst the general population. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't know what my position is, particularly if you believe that I ever stated "soccer is the most popular football code in Australia" or anything like that, apart from maybe once every 4 years as we'll soon see with the upcoming World Cup this year. I'm pretty sure as a result you've stumbled into a situation where your comments on my position are largely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure I'm not actually arguing that this is about common name or anything of the sort, I'm pretty sure your intentions are well meant, but they're way off the mark. I'm pretty sure you're late to the party here and your assumptions about my character are mostly incorrect and unwarranted. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately for you, I did "stumble across" this discussion, or rather it was shoved in front of me by the incessant AN/I BS that this soccer/football nonsense has spawned. If John asks me to leave his talk page I will of course comply, but until then I will comment here as I deem appropriate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if you want to stay around here, rock throwing wont help your case... I'm pretty sure a number of those AN/I cases brought up resulted in boomerangs. I'm also pretty sure what led to the "incessant" AN/Is in the first place is a number of cases as John has previously stated of other editors being deemed not allowed to make a reasonable and constructive point. I'm pretty sure I've actually had a number of my own edits scuttled by HiLo48 and his supporters despite the fact that they were good faith. I'm pretty sure none of this demonstrates how Wikipedia should be working. I'm pretty sure if you actually dig a little deeper you might uncover the fact that there is more to this than the recent issues that have resulted from me being fed up with this place, but feel free to choose to believe whatever it is you decide you want to believe. I'm pretty sure diving into an argument head first without clearly ascertaining what is actually going on and what has gone on over a number of years is actually a really silly thing to be doing. I'm also certain that you rubbishing the majority of soccer fans and stating "no one cares" in this country is far from a bright thing to do as well. It only serves to alienate your position on the fringes of "I don't like soccer." --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea what I may or may not understand. It is precisely because I do understand what has been going on that I decided to become involved. The situation is nowhere near the way you describe it, but I do not expect you to recognise that. I have given you the benefit of the doubt that you are acting in good faith as you see it, however, you may find that in the end the community does not see things your way. My ability to extend AGF is not unlimited, remember AGF is not a suicide pact. Making snide insinuations about my motives and what I may or may not have done to inform myself of the history of this debate borders on NPA territory. I will let it slide for now, but consider yourself warned. Oh, and be careful talking about boomerangs, lest you get hit by one yourself.

I have had enough for tonight, see you later. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't expect the other side of the argument to recognise any of the ongoing scuttling that is going on of anyone who doesn't agree that "soccer is the only unambiguous name for the sport in Australia" is a reasonable response... I've tried a number of different times to discuss this matter reasonably to the point where any semblance of AGF has worn through with HiLo48. As you have stated AGF is not a suicide pact, nor do I have to put up with the terse language that has been thrown about at me ever since I entered into this discussion... the countless "who do you think you are" and "fuck offs" and etc have driven me to the point where I pretty much have no good faith to give to HiLo48. I am far from alone on that footing as well. My good faith meter is running on empty when it comes to dealing with HiLo48 and that is exactly what this is about --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no "fuck offs" here. There is a statement from you that you're "pretty sure" I'm wrong about how things work on my side of the Barassi Line. That's bad faith, and a major problem here. I am right about what I'm describing. I do know what I'm talking about. The school I'm at has produced a Socceroo, and several other top level players. The game is only ever called "soccer" here. Melbourne media almost exclusively calls the game "soccer". From memory, I don't think you've ever spent any significant time in Melbourne. To tell someone who lives here that they're not telling the truth about what happens here is a huge problem. You are accusing me of lying. I am not a liar. You have to face the fact that lot of soccer people exposed to the same history as you comfortably use the name "soccer" every day. As you know, the game is doing fine in Melbourne. Yes, the official name within the sport is "football" (not "Association football"). But the common name outside AND inside the game is "soccer". That's why I see no reason to change to anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Guys, there's a bit of me that enjoys this banter with its undertones of hostility and conflict. Can I just remind all of you that

a) we are arguing about terminology on an encyclopaedia article. It should be as good as it can be, but nobody will die over this, and

b) the hostility is the reason we are here in the first place. We won't solve the problem by continuing the hostility.

• Please read and internalise the advice I gave you at the real discussion. Normally I have a higher-than-usual tolerance for what I think of as masculine posturing (and I don't mean to insult anybody by that; I think I would enjoy going for a beer with you all), but on this one it simply isn't helping. The real discussion is moving forwards; why not turn your energy to framing a really good RfC question which will settle this once and for all? Or realistically for the next year or so, which would satisfy me. --John (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John, some of us said earlier that we see no need for another RfC. We've had three. What do you think we can achieve with another? It would surely only lead to more tension. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not if it is done properly. --John (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

But we can't just repeat the previous questions, surely. So what is there to discuss? You must have some idea. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I do have some ideas, and I am looking at the four suggestions in the summary table. I am not feeling 100% tonight though, so I doubt I will get it done tonight. I will try for tomorrow. I am sorry to keep you waiting. Meantime see if you can help me. I am looking for a question (or possibly questions?) that, when answered, will put this to bed for a good long while. Any ideas? --John (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious that there are strong feelings in the discussion. One of the strongest is the feeling among some editors that the name "soccer" is unacceptable, anywhere, any time, no matter what. However, that name is used by a majority of Australians, including many fans and players of the game, and me. In some parts of Australia it's virtually the only name used in the media and general conversation. Any other name for the game is confusing in those parts of Australia. This obviously includes the name being pushed by some of those who don't want "soccer", "Association football". (Just to add to the confusion on that front, the second level Australian Football competition where I live was called the Victorian Football Association for over 100 years.) It's a core issue. Without tackling it, I don't think we can get far in making this a peaceful place. My approach, which I know upsets some others, so might need to be moderated, has been to simply ask "What really wrong with the name soccer?" I think −we need an answer/resolution, but maybe through asking the question in another way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I strongly believe HiLo48's approach is not the one we should follow. Stamping the name "soccer" for the sport on Wikipedia and moderating this will only creat more tension. We're going to see a lot of users receiving blocks for one thing. I am not saying to give in to the "die hard soccer fans", in fact this is what I think first needs to be discussed. Is this change reasonable, is it warranted? So what I suggest we first do is to openly discuss the renaming of the sport in Australia which occurred in 2005 and the subsequent changes in media, the sport and it's organising bodies. This is what we must first discuss and determine the legitimacy if this.--2nyte (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the formal renaming of the sport by FFA is certainly relevant. The question is (and maybe this can help John frame his question(s)), how relevant? Obviously some people feel common name is more important. I won't try to answer here. Just offering the question. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Both "soccer" and "football" are common names for the sport in Australia now. The main point is that the change has been towards "football" and away from "soccer" - there has been nationwide move away from "soccer", granted some areas have not been to such a large extent, but still there has been a very real change. Where you HiLo48, question "what's wrong with soccer?", I question why not show this very real change on Wikipedia?--2nyte (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but this has mainly been amongst the close followers of the sport. You have nothing other than your assertions that this is the case for the overwhelming majority of Australians for whom "football" has nothing to do with a round ball. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nick, but I'm trying to follow John's request to just talk about the question(s). HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

likewise it has been the general perception that the common name soccer can stay purely on the basis of popular opinion that soccer is the only name that is out there or that football is now not a common name this is purely nothing more than Wikipedia:IRONY. John has stated that common name cannot stand on its own, this is just the type of outcome that I was looking for from this discussion so lets put this one to bed and ask the relevant question.

Why should the word soccer stay as it is despite efforts for good reason to shift away from it?

I've pointed out the many evidence based positions for this shift, the list of them is far to long and there is no place for arguments made of straw just because I cannot keep all of that information in my head. I've directed other editors to read these well thought out and logical conclusions that were taken from an independent commissioned report.

It seems all in well faith is ignored here and a strawman is constructed often by other editors here that the move was made purely out of a statement of oneupmaniship and that the FFA is plotting an evil plan and therefore that Wikipedia editors who support the FFA's position are somehow unleashing the forces of evil. These editors should be reminded that Wikipedia is amoral. Trying to predict how people will use a given piece of information can be rather difficult so the claims of widespread confusion from a shift to "anything but soccer" should be seen as irrelevant. Wikipedia's place is to merely provide useful information about what has happened what people do with that information is entirely up to them if they want to be confused and bewildered by it than that is only a matter of their own choice. Making decisions based on such predictions of confusion in order to "protect" an entity is questionable.

Further, if Wikipedia was to censor on moral/ethical grounds, it would be necessary to choose a particular morality or code of ethics, but this would violate Wikipedia's neutrality Policy proposals to censor on the aforementioned grounds have been made (and rejected) thrice

I am reminded by wikipedia policy that editors as with articles can be as "malevolent" as they like AND furthermore that "causing confusion" does not rank highly on the list of Wikipedia problems. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the words there do not address the issue, and I cannot see why it is so important to change "soccer" to "football". The gov.au website proves beyond any doubt that the word "football" does not mean "Association Football" in Australia—even in the Football Federation Australia section, "(soccer)" is added after every instance of "football" (except in the caption for a picture showing a game being played). There could be no better proof that COMMONNAME requires "soccer". Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing some impartial common sense into this discussion. Editors who keep on arguing for "football" instead of "soccer" as the common name are doing so from a position of invincible ignorance. Afterwriting (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It addresses a key issues here that Wikipedia is not here to protect users from confusion, or bewilderment because of this perceived "problem." Wikipedia is here purely to provide information what people do with that information is entirely up to them. If they decide to be confused, more power to them, but the choice to be confused is a conscious choice. I am reminded here of neutrality through accuracy the position I am putting forward is nothing more than this. You may not like the alternative, that doesn't make the proposal invalid or put forward a position that the consequences of my proposal are in any way relevant to how someone might feel as a result. Wikipedia is amoral perhaps if you don't like that you should become the lord of your own domain, they're cheap to register.

Association football is the most accurate term that can be used in lieu of the fact that football cannot be used to describe the sport on Wikipedia. Soccer does not represent the current status of the game nor does it deal with the past problems involved with the word soccer in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Australian Government uses Football in various websites and discussion on the sport, for example the "Strategic Review into the sustainability of football in Australia". The Australian Institute of Sport calls it's programs for the sport "Football - Men" and "Football - Women" as do a number of the state institutes that actually have a football program. The Australian Olympic Committee uses the word "Football as well. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick Thorne and others, please stop stating that only "close followers of the sport" or only "soccer fans" call the game "football" - this is simply incorrect to state when various local/national media refer to the sport as "football".--2nyte (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. Football means almost exclusively one thing there, and it isn't the round ball game. It's Australian football. And for that reason, there's no point proving that anybody calls the round ball game "football". We can't. "Soccer" is the only unambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. Until a good reason is provided to not call the game "soccer", all of that argument is irrelevant. (And I apologise to John for again writing a comment off the topic he sought of what the RfC question(s) should be, but the conversation had yet again drifted into the realm of possibly good faith but unsubstantiated claims by people with a very insular view of the situation.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No HiLo48, this is what frustrates me. It almost appears you are trying to push an agenda by repeating false information. National media on the "Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line" do call the game "football", SBS, ABC, Fox Sports, Sky News, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review. Not to mention Football Federation Victoria, Football Federation Tasmania, Football Federation South Australia, Football West and the hundreds of clubs with the name "Football Club". Whether you think it's right or wrong, whether you think they should or shouldn't, the fact us they do - it doesn't matter if they call Aussie rules "football", that's completely irrelevant, because the only thing that matters is they call association football "football - that is the only relevant information to this discussion.--2nyte (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

National media on the non-Barassi Line side also call the game "soccer". The ABC usually call it "soccer" in news reports etc regardless of which state the broadcast is in. When they don't they usually use the name of the specific league ~ "A League" etc. Afterwriting (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So what? We can't call it "football" anyway. (There's a much more comprehensive response I could make, negating much of that post, but John doesn't want us to. But I do wish he would explain how he plans to eliminate false and misleading claims.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

By saying "so what"' (and restating your opinion) I assume that means my point has some validity. So for the sake of the discussion, could we use the unambiguous term "soccer" in the article title and "football" in the articles content?--2nyte (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason for the brevity of my reply was that John has asked us to concentrate on the wording of the questions for his proposed RfC. I only went further than that because you repeated what I regard as at least misleading statements of facts. And to me, that's one of the biggest problems here. We cannot even agree on facts. I don't know how we can get past that problem. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure John won't mind us discussing the issue. So could you explain what facts/statements you find misleading or untrue.--2nyte (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's all been said before anyway. And that's another part of the problem. With no new evidence, a group of editors including you repeatedly argue against a repeatedly agreed consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, the censuses only decided that the article Soccer in Australia would not be move to Football in Australia, nothing else. And to that I 100% agree. I have never argued against that censuses and I see no reason to argue it. I have always said Football in Australia should be a disambiguation page - I have recently attempted to re-write it, though failed due mainly to your (HiLo48) opposition.

Now that is agreed, can you please answer my question: What facts/statements in this edit [4] do you find misleading or untrue?--2nyte (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's all been said before, and this is the wrong venue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh, people, relax willya? The main reason for using a term is so that people can find the articles they want and understand them when they do find them. That's why we call things by certain names. It's not matter of one term "winning" the "honor" of being our preferred term.

If it's the case that significant numbers of readers are looking for information on whatever-the-heck-they-do-with-balls-in-Australia and not finding the articles, or if finding the articles are flummoxed and unable to understand what they are about, then we have a problem. Do we? Are many readers looking for information on Australian rules football and instead arriving at the article Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Are many readers reading the entirety of Football Federation Australia and, because of the terminology we are using, coming to the conclusion that the article is actually about the Franco-Prussian war?

If it is happening, is it not possible to address this with judicious application of redirects and turns of phrase such as "soccer, also called football" (or "football, also called soccer" which amounts to exactly the same thing)? And if this is not happening, how about everybody involved chill out, take a few steps back, think about what's important in life, and go work on something else for a few months? Wouldn't everybody be happier if you all did that? Herostratus (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2014 (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.

Association football in Australia

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

---

John, I was originally going to post a 4 paragraph assessment of the situation and a suggestion on matter which I can only describe as conservative. Instead, I have chosen to delete it and post a rather to-the-point suggestion on matter. I did like the approach you were going in mediating the discussion, but what has continued above is what I hoped to avoid - it's something I hope you put an end to.

So my suggestion is, as I have previously mentioned:

If an article is in context (only about association football, e.g. Western Sydney Wanderers FC, Football Federation Australia) then the article should use the term "football" throughout to refer to the sport (with a hyperlink to association football in the opening e.g. Football). On the other hand, if an article is not in context (about more than one Football code, e.g. Football in Australia, Sport in Australia) then the article should use the term "association football" throughout. Additionally, article titles should use the term "association football" (e.g. Soccer in Australia → Association football in Australia, Australian soccer league system → Australian association football league system).

--2nyte (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not use the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia, "soccer"? Western Sydney Wanderers play in a league without any sport mentioned in its name (ever wondered why?), against several teams from where "soccer" is by far the most common name, and where "football" is NOT ambiguous. It's just wrong, because it means Aussie Rules or rugby union. And nobody knows what "Association football" is. But everyone knows what "soccer" is. Why propose an unknown name when we have a perfectly acceptable common name? (Well, perfectly acceptable for a majority of Australians.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguity and confusion here are not the issue here. Wikipedia is amoral and only a source of information. Editors can be as malevolent as they like when they edit here, particularly when they are following NTAC and providing information. Association Football is the most accurate description of the game in lieu of the fact we cannot use football. Soccer is not the most accurate descriptor for the game in its present state whether you like it or not.

Ambiguity and common name are not what is being discussed here, it is your choice to be confused here. As John stated this argument cannot be solved with common name we must look at ENGVAR and other solutions to come up with a decent alternative name to Football. If you cannot make a valid contribution to what John is asking for, please feel free to come back and make a valid contribution when you can, but not until. --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask it again, because it matters. What's wrong with "soccer", the name used by more Australians than any other, now? We have a popular, common name. We would need a very good current reason to not use it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This debate is not common name you cannot make a valid contribution to what John is asking for, please feel free to come back and make a valid contribution when you can, but not until. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Until someone can explain what's wrong with the common name, it IS about the common name. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This debate is not common name you cannot make a valid contribution to what John is asking for, please feel free to come back and make a valid contribution when you can, but not until. John stated what he was trying to do here, it would put you in good stead if you actually listened to what he wants to achieve, otherwise you are simply being an impediment to this discussion. Please feel free to come back when you actually feel like discussing what John has suggested. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree, apparently even on what John has said. But repeatedly telling me to go away is just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess you know how everyone else feels now then hey? do I detect a sense of irony? --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

John definitely doesn't want bickering. HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No he doesn't, so this kind of one sidededness where things just go round in circles and nobody listens to each others point of view is completely unacceptable, that goes for you as well... And my comments above to illustrate poignantly this kind of behaviour, which have been quite deliberate in taking up exactly the same stance as you HiLo. Your and my circular nonsense must stop and a little bit of listening to what is being said would not go astray... I have stated my position enough times, if anyone else would like to hear what I have to say in particular... call out, otherwise I'll be on the orange lounge chair out the back --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You have told me something I already knew, several times - that Australia's peak body for the sport was ultimately reincarnated as FFA because of mismanagement and other problems with Soccer Australia. (Although your detailed knowledge of the complete process is certainly better than mine and very impressive.) And that the FFA would like the game to be called "football", again something I already knew, but that is impractical for the whole of Australia. And we cannot call the game "football" here on Wikipedia, because that name means other things to a majority of Australians. What you haven't explained is why Wikipedia cannot call the game "soccer". We wouldn't be renaming the FFA. We wouldn't be renaming those clubs and associations that have chosen to known as football clubs. We would simply be using the single name that all Australians understand as meaning the round ball game, and that's still used by all bodies as part of the name of the national team. (Try Googling "Socceroos". The weblink to the team's home page is called "Official Socceroos | Home - Football Federation Australia".) HiLo48 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (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.

Moved from RfC

User:John - Seeking guidance. I regard much of what 2nyte has written above as being at least a misrepresentation of the truth, probably accidental based on the circles in which he moves, but still wrong. How can we tackle posts that contain misleading and untrue statements? Note that he provided no evidence for his claims. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, why even bother commenting that I am wrong when you don't explain why. Doing this closes discussion, it's a habit of your that I find disrupting to the whole discussion process. If you think I'm wrong, or my statement misleading then explain why. Please either explain your position or don't bother commenting at all.--2nyte (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's all been said before, and each time it's been said, people got cranky. Hence my question to John. There's really no point in going down precisely the same path as before, so I won't comment again on your post until John has responded (unless he doesn't return for days).

I think I understand the situation quite well and I think what I have said is factual. If you disagree explain why, I do not know what you are thinking, neither does anyone else in this discussion. You are only helping your position if you explain yourself. If you think you already explained your position then show diffs. This is the only way we can advance the discussion and come to a resolution.--2nyte (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That you don't recall past responses and discussions is perhaps one reason why we keep going round in circles. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For the purpose of this discussion and in good faith can you either explain yourself or provide diffs of you doing so in past responses.--2nyte (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This type of behaviour noted above is exactly what is frustrating everyone. I thought you may have listened to what I stated elsewhere. Taking up this stance neither helps your own cause, or anyone else's cause --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am avoiding repeated confrontational discussion without further guidance. Are you seeking it? HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I moved this here so as not to distract or prevent discussion at the RfC. It's perfectly normal for people to disagree in good faith, HiLo48. Remember I asked you please do not use it to falsify the arguments of others or to comment on their motivations. Please take this as a warning, HiLo48. --John (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding How can we tackle posts that contain misleading and untrue statements?, we can ignore them, we can present evidence that shows they are misleading or untrue, but we should not comment on the originators or their motives. That way lies disruption. --John (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

2nyte's claims are simply wrong. 2nyte has been told many times that they are. I am seeking your guidance. To be warned and threatened for doing that seems very bad form. I argue that 2nyte is being disruptive by repeating claims he has been told are wrong, many times. Huge amounts of evidence have been presented in the past. I was the good faith editor there. 2nyte was repeating nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I regard this as a good faith disagreement. You are welcome to seek clarification here, which I have given you. Doing it at the RfC risks turning it into the acrimonious shouting matches previous discussions have become. --John (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good faith disagreement. It's the repeated posting by 2nyte of material he has been told by mutlipe people many times is factually wrong. That is not good faith editing. We are already at one of the difficult points of earlier discussions. Do you not believe me? I am writing and asking in good faith? HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I accept you are asking in good faith. It is a matter of opinion, not one of fact. --John (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

May I say again that what I wrote is what I believe to be factual. I do not recall being "warned and threatened" by any user on Wikipedia, though HiLo48 has repeatedly told me that my comments are wrong or misleading, though fails to explain why, or provide diffs of him doing so in the past. Again, I ask HiLo48 to clarify what is wrong or misleading about my comments?--2nyte (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

John, in view of the approach you took with HiLo48's comment at the top of this section, I think you should remove this edit for the same reason, it comments on the same post by 2nyte, with the only difference being that it agrees with it. Balance and all that. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --John (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

John, it's 2nyte's references to what the media is doing that is the problem. He sees what the media does from where he lives in western Sydney. It is not the same as what the media does in Melbourne, where I live, 900km away, on the other side of the Barassi Line. That's a matter of fact, not opinion. They ARE different. I know they are different. 2nyte has been told they are different. (He hasn't travelled much, so cannot reasonably expect to know how things are in my city.) But he repeatedly posts as if they are not different, despite what he has been told. That is bad faith editing. There, I have talked about another editor, a lot, but I have no idea how to treat this situation differently. I need to talk about him because he is editing in bad faith, and therefore destructively. How would you like me to treat the situation? Pretend he is editing in good faith? Sorry, I can't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not profile me and do not insult me. My location and travel history, which you know nothing of has no affect on my competency as an editor. I have stated many times (including on this talk page) that both "football" and "soccer" are used to refer to the sport. I have also stated that national media (SBS, ABC, Fox Sports, Sky News, The Australian, The Australian Financial Revie) call the sport "football", as do many local media. The governing body of the sport offically changed the sports name to "football", all organising bodies of the sport have independently changed their names, as have hundreds of clubs all towards "football". Though what legitimises the change is the usage of "football" in reference to the sport within the media, especially national media. The has been an Australia-wide move away from "soccer", there is no reason this change should not or can not be applied to Wikipedia - it is only up to the willingness of editors and I stand in favour of change.--2nyte (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if all of what you say is true, which I do not concede, it ignores the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of ordinary Australians call the sport soccer. Even in Sydney, a city which I visit often enough and have many friends, family and business acquaintances with most of whom I do discuss such things as football and soccer. When these people say football, they mean rugby league, except for a few that are soccer fans, and even they usually say soccer when referring to their favourite sport. It may perhaps one day come to pass that most people will call soccer football, but I very much doubt it will happen in my or your lifetimes, but even so, it certainly has not happened yet and Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Wikipedia naming policy clearly states that we should use the common name in our articles and for soccer, that word is unquestionably soccer. Everyone in this country knows what that word means, it cannot be confused with anything else and it is the word used that is actually used by the vast majority of Australians, whatever the politically correct term may be used by some media as a sop to the FFA. The only group that seems to have a problem with the word is a small proportion of die-hard soccer fans who represent a vanishingly small proportion of the overall population. I get it that you don't like hearing any of this. Fine, then stop repeating your non-sequitur arguments. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

John I am getting a bit annoyed at the editors who blatantly ignore the 20 word limit. Here is another one. Might I suggest that it is about time to draw a line in the sand and block for 24 hours the next editor who ignores the very plain instructions. Perhaps you might need to change slightly the warning about how to contribute at the top of the section. Your call of course on this matter. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I am too patient as HiLo has already complained. I will try to be even handed at least in trying to shepherd people through this process. I have commented out the ones that I noticed were over the limit. --John (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between someone flagrantly posting a huge diatribe, and someone going over a very short word limit by a small number of words (or even just one word, in the case of Orestes1984). I hope no-one gets blocked for the second 'offence'. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Q2 Compromise Discussion

I hope you don't mind my potential stepping on your toes by creating the discussion in regards to a compromise soloution to the terminology as per Question 2, I think the consensus is showing that Q2 will be a yes, and at that point we should be working out where we should use Football and where we should use Association Football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's fine. The process doesn't belong to me. Whatever takes the process forwards is fine with me. Of course, as has already been noted, if this attempt to mediate fails, the next step will be either another and much more searching AN/I discussion, or Arbcomm. It's likely (in my opinion) that either of these options will be far less patient and tolerant than I have been. As long as people are conscious of this, I don't mind what they do. --John (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's its, by the way. --John (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beagle2ontheground.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beagle2ontheground.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Mike Peel (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Well done for finding a free replacement. --John (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid FAC

Hi John

I've renominated it here. Thanks a bunch for your help with this. I've learnt a lot. Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already supported it. Thanks for inviting me to help, it was a lot of fun and I think it looks great now. --John (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarify "new data"

John, you said saying "Yes" to Q1 will allow editors to get on with more useful endeavours, pending the emergence of genuinely new data. Though what exactly would be considered "new data"? What specific evidence would be needed for a name change away from "soccer"? I ask this because much evidence already exists, though many disregard it or considered it irrelevant due to soccer being the "most common" name.--2nyte (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good question. New evidence would have to be new, because it is evident that for our purposes the existing evidence and arguments will not lead to a resolution. Therefore, items like (for example) the Australian Federation renaming itself in 2004 would not count. New evidence would have to be weighty and compelling; let's say this time next year a well-respected Australian sports author writes a book which is well-received arguing that it makes more sense for everybody to call the sport "association football" or "soccer", and all the press and TV follow suit, that would count for me. A government commission publishes a white paper recommending use of a particular term. Those would be examples of things that would make it worth re-opening the debate, if we are successful in achieving a consensus in the current discussion. Do you see where I am coming from? --John (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So I would right in saying that a change to "football" or "association football" is beyond consideration until "all the press and TV follow suit"? Additionally, how is this justified and why is 'old' evidence disregard or considered irrelevant even though it is still applicable?--2nyte (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily "considered irrelevant" in an intellectual sense, but more that I consider in a problem-solving context we are unlikely to solve the problems by continuing to wrangle over the same old data that people are already thoroughly in disagreement over. August 2015 isn't for ever either and I have a good feeling from my prior involvement in processes like these that when the pressure is taken off for a year or so the problem will become easier to solve. People get entrenched and get into a habit of conflict. Breaking the habit can be hard but is an essential first step in solving this. Does that make sense to you? --John (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_.7BParty_1.7D Your presence is requested there. Topic is Soccer in Australia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not sure what you are not clear about. Why don't you start by clarifying what you think my conflict of interest is, or alternatively why you think I am in breach of WP:INVOLVED (you made both allegations, or did you switch from one to the other?) as you were saying here. At the moment I genuinely don't understand what your problem is. Maybe you didn't explain yourself very well. --John (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck copy edit help

John, you provided a most helpful copy edit during the FAC for Fuck (film) and I was most appreciative of your assistance along the quality improvement process in getting that page to WP:FA quality.

I've nominated the article on the book, Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article consideration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1 -- and I was wondering if you'd be willing to have a look and see if you could help out with some copy editing ?

Letting you know as I thought you might be interested in an article on a similar topic.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have a look. Thank you for asking me. --John (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and thank you so much! Keep me posted when you're done? — Cirt (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful copy edits ! If you've finished with your pass of copy editing, perhaps you could leave a note at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1 ? — Cirt (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There's about to be an ANI filing which involves you, with the section title "Talk page violation". — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you saved me the trouble. --John (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Extending my hand

TransporterMan (TALK) has extended an olive branch of peace.

There's absolutely nothing I do here at Wikipedia which I hate to do more than to criticize someone else involved in dispute resolution. That — DR — is by far the main thing I do here, being active at 3O, DRN, and MEDCOM. We never have enough volunteers and I prize every one we do have very highly. That's all you are trying to do at the RfC and I respect and honor that. Thank you for very, very much for that. Your idea was a good one (and, indeed, I've done something somewhat similar, though the differences between our efforts go to the essence of our disagreement). I apologize if I've said or done anything which seemed like a personal aspersion; if I did, it was careless and unintended. You're a good guy and a good admin and I'm sorry if this has caused you discomfort. Best regards, TM — 18:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, I appreciate the thoughts. I have more comments I will share with you in the future but for now let me also say again that I realise your efforts were also motivated by good intentions, and I too regret if any of my communications with you have been unduly harsh. I have put a lot into this and I still expect great things from it. --John (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, very much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Football in Australia, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

The Amps

Thanks a lot for your copy-edits on The Amps. They improved the article. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's looking good now. Well done for your work on it. --John (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, did you notice what I did to File:Kim Deal playing guitar with The Amps.jpg? --John (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did, thank you. Also I noticed about the Albini shot. You probably saw that I ended up removing the Albini pic from the article, but that was just because I removed some text near there and it would have been too crowded with both that pic and the Sonic Youth one. But I saw that you also incorporated that photo into the Albini article, so it's all good. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Typo

Hi John, I think you made a typo on the date in this edit. If I am not mistaken the RFC question was to suspend discussion until August 2015. Cheers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Bugger, you're right. Fixed, with thanks. Ready for the next round? --John (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with hostile editor

Hi. GabeMc is being pretty hostile towards me, again, after I posed a pretty simple question at Talk:Are You Experienced, where I wanted to know why he had removed a review quote from one of the article's sections. His response to me included ripping the reviewer's credibility (which, as I showed in a past argument, shouldn't be questioned as far as rock criticism goes), and continuing to accuse me of "POV pushing" (which he did five times in that past discussion, and numerous times before at other articles). He's been blocked not too long ago for making personal attacks, and since I can't effectively communicate with him (without being insulted or accused of something), I was wondering if I could get your thoughts--either an opinion on the question I posed at Talk:Are You Experienced, or what to do in general when I have to deal with this editor in articles I'd like to edit. Dan56 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan's been harassing me ever since he started several disputes at AYE in January. For his recent disruption at Sgt. Pepper see here. FTR, Dan has started disruptive content disputes at every article I've worked on since January, including Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Jimi Hendrix, Are you Experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, and Electric Ladyland. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll have a look at this. Thank you for letting me know. --John (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  For other recent content disputes in which Dan is a driving force see: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Initial reactions: I made a suggestion at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on 6 March. Would you consider actioning it as a way out of this impasse? Genres are notorious time-sinks on this project and I agree we should be conservative about adding them. I think we should require several sources for adding them. The content dispute you are having is down to editorial judgement and the most obvious suggestion is to try to get more eyes on it. Project talk? As regards your mutual relations, it is clear that you have both become exasperated with one another. Would you consider a voluntary interaction ban for 48 hours or so? If not, I can see this going to AN/I and leading to admin action which may not be to the advantage of anybody. I will look more but those are my initial comments. --John (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I brought his anti-Christgau point at the talk page for WP:ALBUMS already. I've tried to be civil the entire time, but Gabe shows no faith in me whatsoever. It's one thing to disagree with an edit I make or a point I bring up, but I don't see what he believes he can accomplish by being dismissive. He can bring up all the discussions at article talk pages he'd like to--I never crossed any line. Otherwise, all his threats of a "topic ban" and being blocked would have come to fruition by now. He can't prevent me from editing rock album articles, if that's the agenda here. Dan56 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't (yet) read all the conversations you have had, but I can already tell you are pissed off with each other. Right or wrong, like it or dislike it, that is an undeniable fact. This happens. Jean-Paul Sartre said L'enfer c'est les autres ('Other people are hell') and he was right. I know from experience that these things are often defused by disengagement. Walk away from it for a day or two and go edit something unrelated. This lets tempers cool and perhaps other editors will be more likely to chime in if you two aren't arguing. It's just a friendly suggestion, and it describes what I would do myself if I was in your position. It's up to you if you take my advice or not. --John (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

John, IMO Dan is intentionally causing disruption at articles about albums that he does not like, which is highly inappropriate. I have yet to see one of these "content disputes" started by Dan at an article about R&B or Jazz; its only at classic rock and metal that Dan wastes everyone's time, which I find quite suspicious. No, I don't have good-faith for him anymore and per WP:PACT its no longer required of me. FWIW, I would absolutely agree to an IB with Dan for any duration. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Is commenting again his idea of an IB? Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you possibly both just leave each other alone for a couple of days? I had a hard week and although I have some time tonight I want to use it improving an article. --John (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan has now reverted my removal of accusations of slander. Slander, although not the correct term, has legal connotations in North Carolina (where our servers are located) that make this a legal threat. He is now accusing me of committing a crime, so will you please block him until he agrees to remove the accusation of legal impropriety? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't genuinely regard that as a legal threat, do you? Nevertheless, I am now formally warning you both to leave each other alone. --John (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

* Hello John. I apologise for turning up here uninvited, but I watched this latest episode between Dan56 and GabeMc unfold yesterday and feel I should add something for the record, in case things ever did go down the AN/I route you mentioned above.

* The current issue at Talk:Are You Experienced, concerning the inclusion of a Christgau quote, is far from an isolated one, and whether it's right or wrong to include Christgau's opinion in this instance, I don't pretend to know; but I do know that Dan56 continually pushes Christgau's viewpoint whenever and wherever he can. Aside from examples Gabe might've cited, I've seen this happen at Dark Horse (George Harrison album)#Reception, where Dan56 added a comment from Christgau, which was not only nonsensical but for which he also managed to find a more negative slant in his attempt at paraphrasing than (I believe) is evident in Christgau's words. And aside from that, the addition was questionable, gratuitous really – in that the subsection headed "On release and through the 1970s" already outlined and then detailed at some length the hostile critical reception Harrison's album received in some quarters.

* Another example is the same section in the All Things Must Pass album article. Here, Dan56 added a Christgau quote from a 1971 column on the Concert for Bangladesh that happened to refer to the album; this, when Christgau's unfavourable comments about All Things Must Pass – from a dedicated review – already appeared under Reception. More recently in the same article, he added mention of RS Album Guide's view on the album, where again, I think he managed to find a more negative interpretation than in the original text.

* So there's two things: the addition of Christgau's views purely for the sake of it; and what seems at times like an agenda to paint as negative a picture as possible for these albums. (I concede, though, that he did introduce a highly favourable review, from Q, to All Things Must Pass also. I'm not saying that everything he brings to an article is negative.) Agreed, Christgau is notable among music critics, but so is Richard Williams, whose unadulterated praise for ATMP in 1970 one could supplement with more of the same, from his 1972 Phil Spector biography and elsewhere. Also, Williams's opinions on albums, just like many critics', do get reproduced and recycled, thereby attaining notability in their own right – but I've not seen Christgau's views reproduced or even referred to in any of the books and magazines I own.

* Add to that the genre-related discussions at Talk:All Things Must Pass (Rosen quote regarding folk rock, Leng's use of the word Motown) and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV (under "Heavy metal album"). In the majority of these cases, Dan56's interpretation of a statement made by a writer or journalist always seems to hold sway. I think people give up, bored and frustrated, and walk away – not just from the discussion, but from the article.

* I mention these points because, I suggest, precedence shouldn't be underestimated with regard to the latest conflict. Dan56 might cry "bully", accuse others of showing little good faith towards him, or talk of needing help with a "hostile editor", but a lot of this apparent victimisation, from all that I've seen, is others reacting to what might be described as bulldozing in the way he goes about editing on wikipedia. He seems incapable of stepping away and asking himself: Am I actually helping here? As a for-instance, he removed alternative album-cover images from Blondie's Parallel Lines and All Things Must Pass. Okay, the relevant guideline is cited, but why not instead raise the issue with the editor at Parallel Lines, Twistandshout28 (who, coincidence or not, has barely touched the article since)? Same with ATMP: it was/is a GA, why not check with the listed version (where the alt cover was included) and/or raise it at Talk? That might seem unnecessarily democratic, I don't know – but it depends on whether someone is at all mindful of generating goodwill.

* Compare those bold removals with two instances involving J Milburn: regarding music samples in Abbey Road, and (my) inappropriate use of the Apple Corps logo in "Run of the Mill". Beautifully handled by him, and they both got the intended result. I then found, more recently, that when J Milburn started a discussion regarding lack of consensus for including an LP face-label image in a couple of (non-single) song articles – started a discussion, rather than simply proposing that the image be deleted and attaching a link as to why – I immediately bowed to his judgment. (In fact, I offered up about 15 other label images I'd used, saying, "Well, let's delete the whole lot then, right?") Rather than policing, he's educating, indirectly.

* In short, it's about adding a degree of empathy to that determination to see guidelines being adhered to.

* I think you've handled this marvellously, John, and I'm sorry to have gone on. But I think the issues I've talked about really need to be borne in mind – because they might not necessarily come across in the multitude of article edits or talk-page threads. Humans get ****ed off, and they just might not welcome interaction with the same editor at yet another article. Best, JG66 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful post. --John (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dan has continued to edit war at AYE. Now he says that he can gain consensus at a project page that dictates the content at an article page where there is no consensus to include. What should I do, John. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• What's the deal, John? You asked Dan to stay away and he kept edit warring. Why aren't you taking a more firm stance on this? I agreed to stay away from him, so why aren't you giving him a block for disregarding your "formal request"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked you both to step back from the dispute, and you both disregarded my request. I can't (and don't want to) block you both. Avoiding each other would have looked like you editing Warner Bros. Animation and him editing Vinit Singh. (I got them by clicking the "random article" link on the left-hand menu) Instead, you continued to edit Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (even though you've had a recent dispute with him there), and he continued to edit Are You Experienced (even though he has had a recent dispute with you there). I can try to mediate or I can outline a behavioural suggestion. If you are not willing to avoid each other, that rules out the second route. So, let's try plan B. Why don't we continue the discussion at Talk:Are You Experienced? If it continues to be a behavioural issue we can take it to AN/I, but I would far rather avoid that as it will not end well for anybody. --John (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I don't know what you are talking about. I obeyed your request and went about my business editing Sgt. Pepper. Are you saying that I can't edit the article because Dan started content disputes there, because that is absurd? Dan broke your "formal request" by edit warring, but I did not break your request. I still think that the best solution is an IB. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

FTR, Dan has edit warred and caused disruption at EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that I've edited this YEAR! Are you seriously saying that all Dan has to do to drive me off an article is go there and make a dispute? Then I need to walk away from it while he goes back to editing jazz and R&B articles where I don't edit? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to frame a formal interaction ban we can take that to WP:AN/I. By the nature of such bans you would be restricted from editing articles you both have edited. I would rather try to resolve this first. Would you mind playing along with me for say 24 hours? --John (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So, I would essentially be topic banned from every article that I like (Dan has edited literally every Stones, Beatles, Hendrix etcetera album), but Dan would go back to editing the articles about music that he actually does like, which I don't edit? I'm not sure you are 100% correct about that, but sure, I'll play along. Thanks for your effort, John. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:IBAN: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way." So, no an IB does not mean that I would be banned from basically all classic rock articles while Dan can go back to editing jazz and R&B ones. Don't you think its at all suspicious that Dan in currenly involved in at least 6 of these content disputes at articles about classic rock or metal, but none at any articles about jazz or R&B? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As I say, that's something that would have to go through a community noticeboard. I can't just enact it. I stand corrected on the language of IBAN. Let me have a further look at the situation. I'm not sure I've (yet) been much help to you so there is no need to thank me yet. If you have evidence that Dan is systematically following you to articles, that is something I can look at. Do you? Can we also keep any discussion of editor behaviour here for now and try to progress the discussion at article talk without recriminations? --John (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

On the same day that Dan started the Sgt. Pepper dispute he also challenged my work at Electric Ladyland here, Axis: Bold as Love here, and Jimi Hendrix here. So, in the matter of a couple of hours he confronted my work at literally every album article that I've worked on. He contested that Sgt. Pepper was a pop and rock album the same day he contested that Jimi Hendrix played psychedelic rock and blues. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As my edit history shows, before 07:01, 16 March 2014 (when I rightly tagged Electric Ladyland) I hadn't been involved with Sgt. Pepper for about a week. Furthermore, I contested how you interpreted the Moore source you felt supposed "rock and pop album that set the stage for later works of progressive rock" (the discussion I started ultimately led to you improving sourcing and adding further information, so what the prob?). Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Its the inordinate amount disputes that you start at inopportune times that make me question your intent and judgment. You argued for five days straight that Moore 1997 was a bad source for "Sgt. Pepper set the stage for later works of progressive rock", but the music journalist Thomas Blackwell, writing for PopMatters and citing Moore's 1997 book The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, credits the album as being "virtually responsible for the birth of the progressive rock genre". The name of the PopMatter article is "Sgt. Pepper Sets the Stage: The Album as a Work of Art". You were absolutely wrong and it wasn't an issue with my sourcing, which you refuse to acknowledge. You disrupt only at classic rock and metal albums and that is highly suspicious; several other editors have agreed with this concern, including JG66, Synthwave.94, Rvd4life and Вик Ретлхед. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't provide that source till near the end of the discussion. Dan56 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The material is supported by the original source that I used to cite the sentence (Moore 1997). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your popMatters source. Dan56 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The PopMatters source that completely agrees with my interpretation of Moore 1997? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well OK, let's finish this discussion on editor conduct here, rather than splitting it. I asked at User_talk:Dan56#Polite_request about the timing of the edits which Gabe raised with me here. I agree with him that it is unacceptable to give the appearance of tagging another editor's work while in a dispute with them. It pushes WP:POINT territory for me. Quite apart from any voluntary IBAN that we may need to look at, can you (Dan56) acknowledge that what you did was wrong and undertake not to do it again? --John (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, Laser brain was planning on bringing Dan to AN/I to ask for a topic ban from genres. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And what happened to these plans? Dan56 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Laser brain fell ill and stopped editing Wikipedia. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

John, look at my edit history (from 07:01 to 07:12, 16 March 2014). I was cleaning up genres at several different music articles. I didn't look to see if Gabe had edited them, because that's not relevant to me--I should be able to make good faith edits at any article. Furthermore, the edit history shows I hadn't edited or been involved with Sgt. Pepper's since 23:20, 11 March 2014. Are you suggesting I waited five days to prove a point or something? BTW, after our original dispute at Are You Experienced months ago, he proceeded to WP:POINT territory by going to articles he noticed I had edited at the time to revert me--Unapologetic and its talk page, along with others--[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I wouldn't stoop to this, John, honestly. Dan56 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan, you regularly revert people at no less than 25-50 music articles, many of them are on my watchlist, and when I see you arbitrarily reverting good-faith edits like many of the ones above, I sometimes revert you. You followed me to all the Hendrix articles that I edit and the Hendrix page to hound me, so stop lying. The difference here is that Dan edits dozens of album article while I only edit a few. So that I reverted you at 1% of the articles that you dominate and you reverted me at 100% of the album articles that I edit is a red herring. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the parts I wrote, John, which you removed here--it gave off the wrong tone for a discussion that should be centered on the piece of prose in question--a review quote. I'm done with this discussion on "Hostile editor" or "Conduct" or whatever this has devolved to. A solid consensus was formed at WP:ALBUMS finding Christgau to be a more-than appropriate source. If either of you feel different, feel free to comment there. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• John, please explain to me how Dan is not edit warring at AYE. He just reverted for the third time in 30 hours and he's not allowing the discussion at the AYE talk page to determine consensus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Dan is edit-warring there, but he is claiming he has consensus at the project discussion to do so. I would disagree with that myself. Here's a question; will you agree to a WP:0RR restriction for 48 hours yourself? The reverting certainly isn't helping, and I need to make sure I am treating both of you fairly. --John (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure, John. No problem; I'll not revert anything at AYE for 48 hours. FTR, he is absolutely wrong that he and his wikibuddies can determine a consensus at some project page that dictates the local consensus at all articles. That's utterly absurd and horrifically against the Wikipedia community consensus, which has repeatedly rejected the notion of project-wide consistency based one page's advice. As long at its not contrary to WMF requirements, local consensus always takes precedence. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• What Dan is basically arguing is that the consensus that he and his buds developed at the wikiproject page over the course of 24 hours means that no editor can ever remove any quotes from Bob Christgau from any articles for any reason whatsoever, which is exceedingly ignorant as well as a virtual blasphemy in terms of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, since I got pinged, I am not a "wikibuddy" of Dan56. In reality, I've found both Dan56 and GabeMc difficult to work with on music articles. What I said at the project talk page were some general comments about using Christgau as a critical source. I made no specific comment about using him for this Hendrix album article one way or the other, nor would I want to get further involved in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dan is now canvassing in addition to the edit warring from a few hours ago. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually this was canvassing. Dan56 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And I dont' appreciate this either (User_talk:Bbb23#Meatpuppett.3F). Dan56 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• I need Dan56 and GabeMc to cool it now. Gabe, congratulations on getting this article to FA. Can you seriously hold off from making any more statements like "wikibuddy", "ignorant" and so on. That's a bit disrespectful to User:Wasted Time R. Dan56, can you show a bit of respect for this recently peer-reviewed article and continue to make your arguments in talk? I especially don't want the edit war to continue when protection expires. I've suggested at User talk:Dan56 that this go to either WP:3O or WP:RFC. Maybe that is worth pursuing? --John (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• No problem; sorry. FTR, I meant that I thought Dan's interpretation of the proper application of the result of project discussions was ignorant; Wasted never said that they thought the "consensus" was global; that was Dan who implied that it was applicable to all articles irrespective of the local consensus built by users who actually edit the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly, I thought Wasted's contribution was quite helpful there. Please, let go of the animosity and get on with having the argument at user talk. Maybe RfC will be the way to go. --John (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay; sorry Wasted, I think your comments were fine when applied to the general, which is what I think you said above. John, will you at least address my charge that Dan spends half of his time on Wikipedia improving articles about r&b and jazz topics and half driving protracted content disputes at articles about heavy metal and hard rock? I could point you to at least six genre disputes involving Dan at rock album articles, but why has Dan started none of these RfC-type disputes at blues, r&b, hip-hop or jazz articles? Am I really the only person who suspects that Dan is actively trying to obstruct the improvement of articles about rock music while simultaneously working to improve and advance articles about genres that he likes? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think John or anyone else should attempt to measure one editor's contribution in one genre compared to another genre. This is sounding a bit far-fetched, Gabe. In other news, I read the comments on Laser brain's talk page (linked above), and their (very valid) suggestion was to start an RfC/U. If that had happened we might not be in this mess right now. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good recommendation. Article talk for the content dispute, RfC/U for any conduct issues. --John (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, if its really far-fetched, then why has Dan driven 10 or more of these content disputes this year at rock articles but none at any of the genres that he takes to GA or FA? If I started an RfC/U on Dan, several editors would show-up and derail the entire process saying that I was only out for revenge. Dan is the biggest time-sink that I've ever seen in 5 years on Wikipedia and I've never seen anyone get away with his behaviors. Dan is active in at least 6 similar content disputes whereas the only content disputes that I am involved with were started by Dan, as revenge for AYE. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• GabeMc, if they are obviously disruptive an admin can easily jump in. But if part of the supposed pattern of disruption requires an admin to make decisions and investigate on which articles they're editing (esp. if it's a rather esoteric suggestion like "they edit blues but not jazz") you will not find admins willing to take action--and the suggestion here is that it's their very presence in those article that's disruptive, something I cannot subscribe to. You can't derail the process before it starts by saying other editors will say this or that: you don't know that they will, and you (or at least we) will have to take their comments seriously as well. It's always possible that they are right. On the other hand, sometimes an RfC/U will bring to light other kinds of disruption, or disruptive clique formation, which might prove you even righter. You don't know that until you try. I don't know why editors have so little faith in the RfC/U process, but the fact remains that larger editor problems basically require (de facto or de jure, that's really immaterial) such a process to have been gone through. To put it another way, if three admins (Laser brain, John, and I) say that such a process is the way to go, then, well, maybe that's the way to go. After all, you want us to take action. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• "editors have so little faith in the RfC/U process" because, like AN/I, its little more than a popularity contest. If three or four of Dan's buddies showed-up it would get derailed and turn against me. Wikipedia never misses an opportunity to blame the accuser. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I just don't subscribe to that opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved the material on your RfC/U from here to your sandbox where I will continue to watch it. It looks like a compromise on the immediate content issue is in the process of being formed. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• John, are you okay with Dan soliciting uninvolved editors for comments? I added an RfC tag and I think its better that involved parties don't canvass for comments. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think I am ok with that as long as they are not all friends of his or something. They're not, are they? I will go over and ask him. --John (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • John, he's soliciting comments from the project page that I was blocked for copyediting two weeks ago. Don't you think that anyone who edits there regularly saw that I was blocked while in a conflict with Dan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell

• 14 content disputes in 3 months is disruptive and a waste of the community's resources; it remains to be seen why the focus of Dan's protracted time-sinks is always rock articles where he has contributed less.

• I started my FAC copyedit on AYE on 1 January and within three days Dan started a series of content disputes that lasted at least three weeks. Then, three months later he repeated the exact same formula at Sgt. Pepper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dan has now added a Christgau quote to one of the other album articles that I regularly edit. He's now starting conflicts at 3 out of 4. Isn't this WP:POINTY? He is actively trying to antagonize me. Please do something, John. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gabe, you keep bringing up the observation that Dan doesn't have these disputes when he edits jazz and blues articles but does when he edits rock articles. Doesn't it make sense that Dan's editing doesn't change from genre to genre but that it's at rock articles that he runs into you? Given this continuing conflict between the two of you, I have no doubt that if you widened your interest and edited articles on jazz, that you two would have conflict on those as well.

It's the two of you together, you're like oil and water, you don't mix. And it seems like you are spending an enormous amount of energy and effort, amassing diffs, talking to different admins to, basically, get Dan blocked because you two have so many content disagreements with each other. I get it, you don't get along. But don't you realize that any decent admin will look at both sides of the case in order to be fair? Both of your conduct has to stand up to scrutiny. Is compromise so out of the realm of possibility? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you and Dan are always editing the same articles then it is important that you resolve this peacefully and productively. The content matter is being discussed at article talk. You are developing an RfC/U in your sandbox. Should that become necessary you can always bring that to the community. Obviously it would be preferable to resolve matters informally if that is at all possible. I don't know what else I can say here. --John (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think its appropriate that Dan undid some of my work at Sgt. Pepper just a few hours after I made the improvements? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't (and don't want to) comment on the subject matter. Dan has every right to edit an article he edited first in 2012. It's on his watchlist I imagine. --John (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you don't see this as hounding, to add Christgau to another article and then revert my work at Pepper based on yet another genre dispute? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is an IB still an option, because I'm not interested in debating nearly everything that I do here with Dan and I'm sure that he feels the same. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. It would have to go through AN/I though. Wouldn't the RfC/U be a better avenue? If you decide to go via AN/I I can help you. In either case you need to assemble some diffs that show a pattern of poor behaviour. --John (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to bother with the RfC/U, it would just end up as a big ole boomerang, as I can't win a popularity contest against Dan. Can't you just take this to An/I and request an IB, or do I have to beg for that also? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Can you put together any more diffs that show actionable behaviour? --John (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, according to you none of its actionable, right? I don't know what to say, but this is beyond confounding. Do I have to actually prove to you that Dan and I don't mix well? He's spent 6 weeks of the last three months going from dispute to dispute with me. What do you want from me, John? A couple of days ago you asked us to avoid each other and now that's apparently gone. What would be actionable? I started my FAC copyedit on AYE on 1 January and within three days Dan started a series of content disputes that lasted at least three weeks. Then, three months later he repeated the exact same formula at Sgt. Pepper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't have to prove that to me. If you got an interaction ban, how would that work exactly when you edit largely the same articles? --John (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan doesn't really edit the same articles that I do except to stuff them with Christgau and negative reviews. An IB would mean that neither one of us could revert the other, confront their work or badmouth. That's all I want. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will put something together for you. --John (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Soccer RFC

It would just silly to have an article called Soccer in Australia and ban the use of the word Soccer. You kind of also need an suboption to maintain the status-quo without any deprecation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment on how you should vote. Option 1, as it says, is to maintain the status quo without any deprecation. --John (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the merit of your other suggestion though. Thank you for that. I've removed the option which would lead to a result contradicting the result achieved earlier. --John (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

You're gonna need it, in between Hendrix and soccer. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It's 1:37 am here so I will save it for the morning. Right now what I need is a beer. Luckily I have an Erdinger somewhere... --John (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I came here to ask if there were other ways I might improve the text on amphetamine, but I was astonished to find that you've dealt with a ton of issues and still found the time to review 2 other FACs this past month. This is for helping with FAC reviews in spite of your busy wiki-life. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Aw thanks! That was nice of you. Yes, it's been a busy month. --John (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I copy-edited and supported. Nice work on the article. Helping at FAR is probably the most rewarding thing I do currently, and working on amphetamine was no exception. --John (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You were right; it definitely looks better after pruning out all that superfluous filler. Thanks again for all your assistance! Not many reviewers take the initiative and help edit anywhere near the extent that you did with the article, so I really appreciate your all your input and editing assistance on it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Shepherding your flock

Permit me to say how much I have admired your handling of the brouhaha at Talk:Are You Experienced. Gentle but firm. I can't imagine why editors consent to be administrators, what with the sniping, monomania and rudeness you must have to put up with. But I'm so glad you do, and more power to your elbow! Tim riley (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's extremely kind of you. I appreciate it very much. --John (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Breaking IBAN

You have warned Pete (Skyring) for yet again breaking his IBAN,. I'm sorry, but after the last time he did this there can be no excuse for breaking his ban again. Pete has a long history of trying to work around the edges of his IBAN and was specifically warned not to try it again the last time. I can dig up diffs if you want, but frankly, Pete has crossed the bright line and it is now time for admin action, not more tootheless warnings. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please show diffs for this as I was not privy to the discussion around the interaction ban. --John (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

See here - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Skyring's usual response to an infraction is to claim that he did not understand that it applied in the particular case or that what he was doing was not a breach for some bizarre technical reason - don't fall for it if that happens here. He knows fully well what is allowed and not and in any case the admonition contained in the close of that AN/I thread is pretty unambiguous. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I did think it a bit weird when he popped up there again. I read that archive and the consensus is clear. It also specifically includes RfCs, which I hadn't previously realised. I won't block, as in all innocence I offered this user the chance to vote in the RfC, which I will strike. But if User:Johnuniq, User:Bbb23, User:DangerousPanda or User:Callanecc wants to I won't object. --John (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to look at the merits of this later if I have a chance, but just a quick note that Johnuniq doesn't have the power to block anyone. I'm also letting Drmies know about this conversation (if he doesn't already) in case he has something he wants to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for picking that up. I have some sympathy for Pete's wanting to be involved in this discussion as he has been historically one of the participants. Maybe that is because I was not involved when all the trouble arose with him. I certainly would not block for this as it would seem punitive. But that's just me; am I being too lenient? I welcome other opinions. --John (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that Skyring's comment is a comment on other editors which is the reason for the IBAN in the first place, see Let the record reflect that Wikipedians have great concern about Skyring's way of interacting and that their patience has run out (initial log of the IBAN on WP:EDR). I would support a block in this case up to the suggested length of one month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are we talking about Skyring's comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)? If so, the comment was made before John gave him permission to post. In addition, perhaps coincidentally, Callanecc added this to WP:EDR today, but the gist of it was that Skyring was informed that he couldn't join a discussion that Hilo was already participating in on March 4. I'm not going to block him at the moment because I'd (a) like to think about it a bit more and I'm going off-wiki and (b) I'd rather wait to see if anyone else has anything to say. But, in my view, it's a clear violation of the ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a coincidence just that I forgot to log it when I gave him the warning a few weeks ago. In terms of blocking, I'm happy to push the button but I'd like some support/consensus before I do to make sure I'm not being too harsh. Is it worth taking it up on ANI? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate John's kindness and immense efforts to make that discussion a fruitful one, I agree with Bbb23 and Callanecc, and I will not object to the latter pushing the block button. This has gone on long enough. Sorry Pete, but you should know the score. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the start, I have no objection to a block. --John (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer Callanecc's ANI question, it's not necessary to take this to ANI. Indeed, it's probably counterproductive. It's a straightforward violation and doesn't require a community discussion. It's already gotten a fair amount of input from several administrators, anyway. I'm also willing to block, although I haven't thought about how long the block should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Skyring for one month as that was the minimum block length I suggested during the ANI discussion. If there are any more violations I'd be thinking six to twelve months or indefinite. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Grimm (politician) again

The same folks are trying to make the same edits, and ignoring WEIGHT etc. for a minor event - including the reinsertion of "fucking" etc. FYI. Collect (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to share your concerns. Wasn't this discussed at AN/I and BLPN a few weeks ago? --John (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

it's currently being discussed very productively on the article talk page. Collect has wisely stopped reverting (he was the only one doing it -- a key point). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Progress

Gabe and I appear to be making progress at User talk:Dan56#Sources. Dan56 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's great news, well done. --John (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing editors comments in RFC?

Why are you removing legitimate comments from the second RFC at the Naming conventions (Football in Australia) article? You're killing discussion and creating a chilling effect for those who want to support Option 1 (a or b). I find these removals extremely disturbing as these removals are going to cause the consensus to be skewed invalidly. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Blocked users are not allowed to participate. If the user wanted to take part he should have logged into his main account and requested unblock in the usual way. --John (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh great, so one of the most important contributors to this issue on the side of logic and reason and not giving into the Victorian AFL bubble has been banned by you and can't provide their input into what you seem to think will be the final part of the discussion and also now you're removing edits from people who say they aren't a banned person. What a giant waste of time this has been, to go through all that time and effort, only to get a skewed and biased result. Macktheknifeau (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not banned, just indef blocked. The block was reviewed at AN/I. Would you like to go there again and review my removal of the blocked user's votes? We don't generally allow IP votes (for example at RfA); if they had confined themselves to commenting, I might have allowed it, but if we allow editors to log off and vote multiple times, that really will skew the result. --John (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I have extended the hand of peace to Orestes1984 here. That is as good as I can do, I'm afraid. --John (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Just like I expected, removing the supposedly banned users have completely destroyed any sense of fairness in the end result of this issue. I do not recognise the 'consensus', because it is flawed and several users were not afforded the ability to put their points forward. You have effectively destroyed this entire process by banning people at the very end. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

Excuse me for perhaps seeming like a Talk page stalker, but there's a discussion just above that I'm watching because I have an obvious strong interest in it (almost a direct involvement, if you like), and I couldn't help seeing this one. I want to object strongly to Macktheknifeau's use of the term "the Victorian AFL bubble". Firstly, it shows a misunderstanding of the use of language on the side of the Barassi Line he's not from, despite being told the reality many times. One doesn't have to be a supporter of Australian football/AFL to use the language he objects to. Even people who hate the game use it. Secondly, the term "the Victorian AFL bubble" is clearly meant to imply that those debating here from the "other" side of the Barassi Line have ulterior motives and are displaying bad faith in their editing. Nothing could be further from the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. In commenting on this area it would be better if folks could stick to the substance of the argument, rather than commenting on the supposed motivations of other editors. After all, that is what Orestes1984 was blocked for, twice. An edit like this at the RfC page would be blockworthy, Macktheknifeau. I wonder if Orestes1984 will take me up on my offer? --John (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

He already has made an edit like that at the RFC page.[13]. Jevansen (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly not a new behaviour. Part of my reason for raising it here is that criticising and labelling other editors as part of an enemy group is normal for this editor. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not put words into my mouth, yet again. I am not implying that anyone has 'ulterior motives' or is editing in 'bad faith'. Anyone with half a brain knows that the AFL's only true stronghold is in Victoria, and that the presentation of AFL in Victoria is skewed compared to it's interest across the country and indeed the world, and that people who are from or ingrained into that AFL heartland do not have the same view of AFL that people outside have, and that it is important to note the distinction. Macktheknifeau (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Really, Macktheknifeau? Anyone with half a brain knows this? Across the entire world? English speakers? Australians? Australian men? What is your source for this claim? --John (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a figure of speech regarding people in Australia in regards to knowing that the AFL's stronghold is Melbourne. I hope not to have caused you any offence. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I can sit back and watch this nonsense no longer. Where "the AFL" is strong is largely irrelevant. It evolved from the Victorian Football League, so yes, it is stronger in Victoria. (Not Melbourne, and that distinction is important.) However, Australian Football has been the stronger code everywhere south and west of the Barassi Line for 150 years. That covers four states and one major territory. Suggestions that this is just about Melbourne or the state of Victoria are simply wrong. THE AFL does not equal Australian Football. You have been told this many times. I can only wonder why you continue to attempt to mislead others on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There is too much of this argument based on what people think other people think. You will find it more productive to use reliable sources when you debate. Nevertheless, I don't want to continue this here. --John (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2014 (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.

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for showing patience and empathy during the recent dispute/s. You've demonstrated quite well that a cool head and an approachable demeanor are often more effective than dismissive arrogance. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 15:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Aw thanks, that's very kind of you and much appreciated. --John (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• another twenty years until Sweden again won a [[FIFA World Cup|Word Cup]] match (against Russia] in [[Detroit]] during the [[FIFA World Cup|Word Cup 1994 in the United States]]). Georg "Åby"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bracketbot, I appreciate it. --John (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Lurkers please note

I reverted an edit at Michael Grimm (politician) on two grounds: WP:BLP and on WP:CONSENSUS as the contentious claims, as I understand it, need consensus for inclusion in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. I support the removal pending a consensus to include this material. --John (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Narwhal copyedit

Would you be able to copyedit Narwhal for GA? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. --John (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a hack; it is all I have time for just now. What do you think? --John (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, narwhals! I don't even dare to look if some of the material here ended up in a "cultural impact of narwhals" section.

I did help to get Dugong to GA once. Dugongs are somewhat extremely vaguely similar to ("not entirely unlike") narwhals, except for the absence of the horn. But when they're a pokemon (however you spell that), the horn isn't absent. Confusing innit.

According to the song, narwhals are @Montanabw: "like an underwater unicorn". Without looking, I think our article on unicorns says narwhals may have contributed to the unicorn myth. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's quite a good article. I recommend a read of it. The unicorn connection is mentioned. I don't know about Pokemon, but I will have a quick look at dugong when I get a chance. I don't think it will be tonight. --John (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as My Little Pony winged unicorns stay out of the discussion, I'll be happy! Montanabw^(talk) 17:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, are they hindgut digesters too?

@Narwhale of the Worlds: (yes that is a real currently active editor) might also be interested. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Unicorns should be, though My Little Pony is made of plastic, so hard to say there... ! Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You are very strange

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 are very strange. BitcoinrealityCheck (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

More readable at 500px instead of 375px. Related to doge (meme). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I am more than that, I am unique as are all human beings. Nevertheless, as an admin here since 2006 with over 150,000 edits I think I know my way around on most things. You are welcome to post here if you are looking for any more help in how we work. One key thing I recommend you to look at is WP:CONSENSUS and its specialised meaning on Wikipedia, and WP:TALK which describes how to use talk pages. Good luck. --John (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs as many very strange people as possible, because it increases diversity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors like you, John, are who, very unfortunately, doom Wikipedia to mediocrity. You are too disrespectful, arrogant and prepotent to ever result in Wikipedia having any credibility. Mercifully for you (but, to the detriment of Wikipedia) you do not have the wisdom to understand any of this. BitcoinrealityCheck (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Prepotent? That's pretty flattering. Perhaps you found the wrong person?

Can we talk about dogecoin instead? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think prepotent is a recognised word. It's certainly true that I don't agree with you. Whether this is down to my mediocrity and lack of wisdom I will leave for others to decide. It may well be that you are right. --John (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com:

"prepotent  

pre·po·tent [pree-poht-nt] adjective 1. preeminent in power, authority, or influence; predominant: a prepotent name in the oil business. 2. Genetics. noting, pertaining to, or having prepotency. Origin: 1375–1425; late Middle English < Latin praepotent- (stem of praepotēns ), present participle of praeposse to have greater power. See pre-, potent1

Related forms pre·po·tent·ly, adverb Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014. Cite This Source | Link To prepotent Collins World English Dictionary prepotent (prɪˈpəʊt ə nt)

— adj 1. greater in power, force, or influence 2. biology showing prepotency"

BitcoinrealityCheck (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That's very interesting, and thank you for the compliment. --John (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a a point somewhere way back in my teenage years when I decided that I never wanted to be regarded as "normal". "Strange" is clearly a form of "not normal". Definitely a compliment to me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2014 (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.

I don't think this is progress

John, User:Macktheknifeau has just made a number of edits on Australian soccer club pages. This is one example. Many more can be seen by looking at his recent contributions.

These edits certainly don't match my understanding of what we have just decided.

You may find this little gem amusing too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In New South Wales the four sports are called AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union & Football. I don't see how you can have any problem with this, especially since you love to bring up the Barrassi Line and local variations in language, and north of said line, the sport of Australian rules is only known as AFL, the two rugby codes are known as League & Union, and football is simply football (but as per consensus at Association football, I'll defer to use Association football instead of just football in the future. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Most people in NSW refer to Rugby League as football, soccer is still pretty entrenched there. Spinrad (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that, you know that, most people in NSW know that. Unfortunately, a tiny group of editors refuse to acknowledge it. I think this nonsense has gone on long enough and unless these editors agree to abide by the consensus, their continuance of what can only be seen disruptive behaviour needs to be incur consequences. These editors need to accept that Wikipedia is entitled to adopt a position that runs counter to their preferred one. The discussion has been had, ad nauseum, and now a decision has been made. Perhaps if this childish refusal to drop the stick continues it's time to consider getting out the block-hammers. This would be much less than ideal, but I do not think we can afford to have the encyclopaedia held to ransom by a few editors who refuse to play by the rules. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the little gem brought to our attention by HiLo48 surely crosses the line with regards to canvassing, I would have thought. Had he just said that there was a discussion that people might be interested in I would have no problem, but he seems to have set our to deliberately poison the well, this needs to be addressed. I would say something to him, but I doubt he would take the slightest heed of anything I might say. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can't see what he has done in anything but the most negative light. I notice you changed the Western Sydney Wanderers page back. There's about ten more just like that. I certainly don't want to go edit warring with someone with so little regard for process. I guess we just wait for admin attention here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Macktheknifeau for 48 hours and raised the block at AN/I. Thanks for flagging it up here. --John (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone else nominated this, but didn't alert you.

[14]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. —John (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Edinburgh Trams

Please stop removing "however" from the article Edinburgh Trams. I do not understand what you have against conjunctions, but they are essential to the fluency of the English language. I do not know why you insist on chopping up proper English. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:EDITORIAL where however is listed as a word to be used with caution. You are not using it with caution but mindlessly. Far from being "proper English", this is holding the article back. —John (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Used with caution, yes. However, in the instances where you removed it, there were no adverse implications. It was merely serving as a conjunction. Notice that "but" is also listed as a word to use with caution. However, I do not think you intend to remove all instances of "but" form the English language. It is essential that these words be used so that the fluency of the language is maintained. Nevertheless, it is also essential that they are used with care to maintain NPOV, and to avoid editorialising. In these instances, neither of these problems occurs. RGloucester — ☎ 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, but not in mine. Reverting was rude but ok. See you in article talk. —John (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Rudeness" is in the eye of the beholder, dear fellow. Some might find it rude to speak without the appropriate conjunctions… RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please halt your changes at once. See my comment on the article talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No. See mine. The article was a bloody disgrace. --John (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Does one have any justification for acting in such a bombastic manner? A "bloody disgrace"? It is clear that others did not think it was a "bloody disgrace". I have no trouble with the majority of one's edits to the article, and many were warranted. However, one's attitude needs a dose of civility. I do not know why one thinks it is acceptable to trample all over the work of other editors. To improve it, yes, is laudable. To call it "disgraceful", when that is clearly not the case, is abhorrent. If one would like some "bloody disgraces" to take a typewriter to, why not pop over to the large mire that is the present selection of articles on the 2014 Crimean crisis, which could sorely use the resources one clearly possesses? RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I apologise for hurting your feelings by being blunt about the state of the article. I am glad you approve most of my edits. The remainder can be addressed in article talk. I do not think I wish to get involved in another political hot potato when I am still up to my ankles in mediating a dispute over Australian sport articles. I will take a look at improving those articles once the dust has settled in the real world. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. --John (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to you. Radiopathy •talk• 23:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We obviously haven't finished

John - please see this addition from Macktheknifeau to Talk:Soccer in Australia.

The last sentence is true. He has begun unilaterally changing "soccer" in many Australian articles to "football". A look at his recent Contributions will show the extent of these changes.

That's not my understanding of our consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this. It is certainly too early to make any sweeping changes, as we are still discussing the implications of the new consensus in the talk page. --John (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Tedious and needed, the work you did on the Australian football/soccer/whatever naming conventions. Let's hope something positive will come out of your good work. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Aw thanks, Drmies; coming from you this means a great deal. Heel hartelijk bedankt, meneer. --John (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Edinburgh Trams#GA review

Awesome. Would you be able to reply to the awaiting question at Talk:Edinburgh Trams#GA review? —Sladen (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. --John (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, details (at Talk:Edinburgh Trams#GA review) would be most useful. —Sladen (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Regarding history about people posting irrelevant content on the articles

Hello, this has came to my attention that there have been people mentioning people in forums, mention about how people posting fanart, etc. But can I ask you a question, is there any chance that certain articles can have a history reset if it's possible? Because not only is to protect certain people from danger, but certain information being read in history can cause people to post reasons of editing to be controversial. So is it alright if there's once certain article that can be deleted but can be reuploaded in a new format of history? Please let me know when you get this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okolanda (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Revisions can be hidden or deleted from the article's history, Okolanda. It isn't usually done unless there are very serious concerns with the material in the revisions. --John (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

But is there a possibility to delete the article and reupload it with history being resetted? Because I have seen this with people trying to expose people about previous experiences just so that it can damage their reputation. I do apologise that it may waste your time. --Okolanda — Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this cannot normally be done, if I understand your question correctly. Is there a particular article you are referring to? --John (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(Okolanda, since you have Wikipedia email enabled, if there's material you're concerned about that would be better not mentioned in public, you might wish to email John using the "Email this user" link on the left. Perhaps you could include a WP:DIFF of problematic material in an article history that you think might be better removed from view?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. --John (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid FAC

G'day John

Could you have a look at my sandbox please? It has a draft new section called 'Abundance, extraction and cost' that I'd like to close the article with. I had something in there before about abundance that I removed as I wasn't that enamoured with it. This is better and hopefully more interesting. Abundant thanks. Sandbh (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I like it, it's very interesting. Sorry for the slow reply. I have been busy at this end. --John (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categorization

There was a long conversation started on your talkpage and moved to Should redirects be categorized?. This is merely a courtesy in case you missed the moved conversation and wish to comment. Feel free to delete this message. Kind Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for protection

Want to semi protect Wellington Phoenix FC for a little while? NE Ent 09:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. --John (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"No late"

Hi, Is there a Wikipedia rule against using "late"? I thought it would be useful (in the Rowan Atkinson article) as otherwise it suggests that Clarke is still alive. Arrivisto (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The only "Clark" in that BLP is e-less, and no -- saying "the late (someone) said ..." or the like is an odd construction, alas. Collect (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Collect is right. Imagine what our articles would look like if we had to call every dead person "the late". --John (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK: Clark with no "e". But my question was, "is there a WP rule against using "late"?; and it seems not. One doesn't need to say "the late Queen Victoria" or "the late Adolph Hitler"; but here, there is the impression of a contemporary event, yet one of the participants is dead. So, I maintain it was acceptable and proper to use "late". Arrivisto (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't tend to rely on rules, as it is preferable to possess clue in this community. If we wouldn't say "the late Queen Victoria" or "the late Adolf Hitler", why would we say "the late Alan Clark"? --John (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I think I've answered the question, but again: we all know Victoria and Hitler are dead, but when an article suggests a contemporary event, it can be useful to know that a person is no longer alive. However, I'm not going to amend the article. (By the way, WP is chock-a-clock with rules!). Best wishes. Arrivisto (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Dennis / Fox Bronte

Can you cast your eye over this? The article is a total train wreck and I was contemplating sending it to AfD, having removed some of the more blatant BLP violations, but after the Pricasso debacle, I'm not sure it would stick? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I took a wee hack and removed some of the fluff. I also moved it to Ian Dennis (artist). I think it has enough sources to survive AfD but there is no harm in trying that if you want. --John (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the subject complaining about his article on Facebook and thought I'd take a look. It looks better now, so I'll leave it for the minute. I think I just saw cites to the Daily Star and The Sun (probably my two least favourite sources in the whole world) and got annoyed. If he really really wants the article gone I can cite WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and look at it then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

An IP has undone all our changes. I have reverted and left a note about our BLP policy on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I see it is semi-protected now. That is for the best I think. --John (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Landskrona BoIS

Sorry to bother You here (assume the argumentation at the administrational board isn't very interesting for You). Another user insist to have it his way. I first wrote the "early-history" chapter without changing the other. But he calls for help from his "task-force"... (I just wanted people to be able to compare for a while). But I read his version and the eye catched immediately the finishing [citation needed] - that marking appears only due to adding of his own conclusions. Why making it like that, and asking for trust to make the article feutered ? There were other errors also (refs. to wrong pages, mixing up years with each other,and the "blue/white collar" that few understands etc) I have re-written the chapter (And I sure hope I haven't done it the wrong way this time) - and to all sources have I also written the entire text of the source and translated that aswell into English, a little litterar at occations. Again, I'm sorry to have bothered You here. Boeing720 (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and there is no need to apologise. I can see that English is not your first language; if, in the future, you ever need help putting things into idiomatic English, you may readily ask me for such help. --John (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank You very much for this offer. I will keep it in mind. And by the way, does a general agreement of date format exist ? I believe I have read it somewhere. Example "7 April 1997" or "7th April 1997" Shall dates written as figures between the 1st and 9th be delt with in contrast to dates between the 10th and 31st ? Thank You very much. And also by the way, the troubles with one of the users seems to be solved. Boeing720 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

7 April 1998 is correct, as is April 7, 1998. We never use th or st. --John (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

advice please

John, I know you are a reasonable and approachable person with an attitude to conflicts that I share (from what I ve read on your page). I know how busy you are, as so many people write to you. I ve been editing the bitcoin page since 2-28-14 on an almost daily basis. there is a very small core of regular editors, there were 4-5 , at the moment 3, myself included. which could makes for an easy consensus, if...one person wasnt always disruptive. Ive had problems with Fleetham from the moment I made an edit. He reverted everything I wrote, bit me. It took me 2 months to bring it up to the 3rrboard,where I summarized a lot of teh context which the judge bless his heart didnt want to know about- I can understand this 3rr board job is a hard one. (anyway fleetham wasnt blocked) after a brief pause fleetham continues at brake neck speed.( I took off for about a week) Besides his tricks , his gaming the system by inaccurate edit summaries I see evidence that he singles me out, and he cant leave any sentence or term alone that remains. I am strongly considering to leave the page, because I feel, he just doesnt allow fruitful peaceful work, as much as I have tried. It seems as if this person has nothing else to do but sit at the computer and undo other people's edits. Its just at the threshold of vandalism, smart, yet stupid/disruptive in terms of contributions and the tendentious/ biased style. when I researched for the 3rr report I looked at his userpage and have never seen so many negative comments on someone's talk page. Maybe you know him, even. is there anything else I should try before saying, 'thats all folks' ? I have plenty other interests but part of me says something needs to be done, because he drives a lot of good and new people away (Agyle indicated something like that, maybe chrisarnesen too , certainly the 2 newbies of the last 2 weeks(ChocTinFoil Kgrad ) Thanks--Wuerzele (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you have had this experience. Let me have a look and see if there is anything I can do to help you. --John (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

please take a look at Fleetham's behavior on Bitcoin again. he reverted me 3 times today and didnt try to discuss once.

he also blanked 2 of my entries on the talk page today , which he considered a personal attack, even though he is the one singling out nearly every contribution, that I make on bitcoin. I stopped editing for a while - he of course continued- and the first contributions I make -bang! revert, revert, revert, never even attempting to correct. he acts really pathologic. I am no vandal, no stranger to this page and do not deserve this treatment. the problem is, that people eventually see through him, and dont want to fight with him. good editors have left the page because of him.

BTW I saw that he sort of accused me of sockpuppeteering, which completely fits his behavior; how mean! rather than taking other people's comments seriously, its the others who are bad or wrong. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

dispute over capitalization

I'm having an argument over the necessity to capitalize Swedish Navy in a FAC and would like for you to take a look and offer your opinion on the issue if you have time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I have commented there. --John (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think, though, the prose is salvageable without too much work, but I do need to read through the rest of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you two consider "adjourning" the issue of capitalization in the FAC of Kronan and taking it up as a matter for WP:MILTERMS instead? I'm not seeing any arguments that this is actually about MOS or that there's a genuine problem with the FA criteria.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The capitalisation is the least of that article's problems. I would oppose over the quality of writing regardless of whether Swedish Navy was capitalised. Nevertheless I strongly believe that it should be. --John (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

John, I welcome your scrutiny just like I welcome scrutiny from others. I'm just having trouble understanding your concerns and I'm hoping that you'll help me out with that. But I don't see the point of discussing ambiguous MOS-issues in an FAC. I can't see how it's relevant to any FAC criteria.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Which ambiguous MOS issue do you mean? --John (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Navy capitalization.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I am opposing over the general slack writing and the other non-ambiguous MoS issue. --John (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The only MOS-issue you've specified is WP:SEASON and a few minor errors. I've done my best to correct the issues you've pointed out. I requested clarification of what you actually meant about the seasons since I myself don't see that any of the rules actually apply.

Comments like "general slack writing", "an awful lot of instances of really poor writing", "one of the poorest FAC candidates I have seen for years" and "AAAARGH" might very well be justified. But right now, your comments are coming off as smug griping, not constructive criticism. Especially the part where you're questioning my commitment to the process.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi protect User:Macktheknifeau's user page?

Hi John, there have been two recent attempts to make what look like vandalism type anonymous edits to Mac's user page, you might like to consider semi protecting it until and unless he ever is unblocked. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've done that. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Me again!

Hi John

I have been beavering away at bringing the Irl Wikiprog tagging and assessments up to date...highly uncontroversial and existentially boring :) But in the article Dunshaughlin I have now rolled back a dodgy unreferenced addition by an anon maybe ..eh...a few times. Don't want to be accused of 3rr or whatever - maybe you could advise?

Also; being a expert at everything could you check that some of my recent talkpage material (not very extensive these days) seems to be getting archived to oblivion..which, I think you'll agree, is not something you'd wish on your worst enemy - or even an Admin. Sarah777 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the Dunshaughlin article for a month to protect it from anon vandalism. Your talk is just being archived to User talk:Sarah777/Archive 34. I've never used auto-archiving so I don't know how it is controlled but I can probably figure it out for you if you like, or maybe one of my kind talk-page stalkers will help. --John (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks esteemed mentor! Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Och, you're entirely welcome Sarah. Look after yourself. --John (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again - the anon editor has said he'll add a Facebook reference for the skating club..I guess that's OK? Sarah777 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't accept that. --John (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject Ireland...problem

John, I have been trying to bring the tagging of project articles up to date and was using the table below as a guide. When I clicked on any box the related articles came up in a list I could work on.

Ireland articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	6	3	27	32			68
FL			2	6			8
GA	1	12	62	172			247
B	30	190	426	806			1,452
C	29	203	931	4,384			5,547
Start	1	212	2,287	28,227		1	30,728
Stub		1	425	26,511	6	5	26,948
List		30	318	2,948	1		3,297
Category				2	26,229		26,231
Disambig					184		184
File					175		175
Portal					26		26
Project					20		20
Redirect		8	61	992	1,741		2,802
Template					3,288		3,288
NA				3	8		11
Other					70		70
Assessed	67	659	4,539	64,083	31,748	6	101,102
Unassessed			1	2		20	23
Total	67	659	4,540	64,085	31,748	26	101,125
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 342,330			Ω = 5.27

Assessment Log

Suddenly this has stopped working - clicking on a number in a box gives the dreaded "404 not found". Any idea what happened and how it might be fixed? Regards Sarah777 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know but I have asked the question here. With any luck it is just a temporary glitch. --John (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

When did you first notice it playing up Sarah, and when was it last OK? RashersTierney (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It worked fine up to and including the 28th April (Monday). Then yesterday afternoon it suddenly didn't!Sarah777 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I operate the web service that wasn't working properly. The server went down for a little while; I've now managed to restart it and things should be working now. Sorry for any inconvenience. Theopolisme (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

it's working perfectly now - great stuff - thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Legitimacy (law))

Again an issue with this page. Could you please consider to protect this page again. thx.Grsd (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP who vandalised it. It is the same user as before. If they continue I will semi-protect again but I would rather not unless I have to. Let me know if it continues. Thanks again. --John (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:3O

Hi John. I'm not sure whether you intended this to be the response to the 3O request or not, but it looks like a third opinion, and in view of all the goings on at AN3 and SPI, I can't see much point in anyone giving yet another one. So I've removed the request from the WP:3O page. Hope that's OK. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That was my intention in making that post, and what you have done looks fine to me. --John (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Endless woe

I really hate to be a bother but the Assessment log - which feeds the recently inoperative WikiProject table - now seems to have stopped operating. Sarah777 (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a bother, it's a pleasure to help you. Even though, to be honest, I've never taken much interest in the technical side of Wikipedia, and it's a case of me asking the boffins. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Could it be something to do with the end of the month? Last updated the assessments on 30 April. Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand there is a 'big push' to update and standardise a lot of the background software. May well be related to this. You could contact User talk:Theopolisme directly and follow up with an e-mail if they don't get back to you in a reasonable time. RashersTierney (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Seeing you commenting at AN/I reminded me that I had meant for some time to thank you for your efforts at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). It still bothers me that it took so long to issue blocks to editors whose behaviour had been creating problems in that area for years, but we certainly do seem to have peace now.

What's fascinating is that the apparently random changes of "soccer" to "football" by seemingly new (and supposedly innocent) IP editors have also dramatically reduced in number since our consensus was achieved. Draw whatever conclusion you like from that.

Anyway, thanks again. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's ok, it was fun and satisfying to bring peace to the area. All I did was created a space for discussion, then enforced the discussion. It is my way to be lenient and not to block unless absolutely necessary. --John (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Banksy

Please do not removed source or sourced content without good reasons. Whether you like The Daily Mail is of no consequences, and if you want to remove it completely from wikipedia, then you better have a good consensus by fellow wikepedians which, as far as I can ascertain from the discussion you participated in, there isn't one. It is completely absurd to removed the original source, then keep another source (The Times) which in essence repeats what it says, especially when it is behind a paywall. If you don't like what it says, then you would have to delete the entire section, because that is the bulk of the source of the claim, removing the original source means that the bulk of the section is not properly sourced. Given that there are conflicting claims of his identity, the assertion on the BBC site is then also questionable when there is no proof on his identity, then you would have to consider that BBC is also an unreliable site. No site is completely reliable, so please make careful judgement when removing source or content, and not make blanket judgement. Hzh (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPSOURCES. Whether you like our policies or not is of no consequence; if you want to add trash sources to Wikipedia articles on living people you should be prepared to get blocked. I am perfectly happy to arrange this for you if you so wish. It seems silly though. Are you sure that is what you want? --John (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you resorting to threats? I'm simply pointing out the illogicality of your action, you either keep the source, or you remove the whole section, there is no middle ground. The Times repeating what The Daily Mail says doesn't not make the claim any more reliable. Hzh (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I never threaten. I am merely pointing out what will happen next if you add unreliably sourced material to a BLP. I am sure neither one of us wants to go down that road. --John (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that I have stated clearly why you action was incorrect (you cannot remove the source but leave the content you consider unreliable behind), and you responded with a threat of a block and not explain why you left information you consider unreliable behind, I would called it at the least an uncivil approach. Hzh (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry then to have given you that impression. Restoring unreliable sources to an article on a living person after an admin had removed them was perhaps an unwise thing to do. Anyone will tell you (see the thread just above for example) how terribly lenient and tolerant I am when adminning, but this area is one in which I am utterly humourless. You would do well to consider the impact that adding speculative material sourced from tabloids can have on living human beings. Nevertheless I appreciate the collaborative approach you have taken in the conversations we have had and I am sorry if the mention of the possibility of blocking seemed uncivil. I was just being honest; one warning then straight to a block is my usual in this area where we are protecting the rights of living people. Take care, --John (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to drag this out further than it needs be, and as far as the page for Banksy is concerned, this matter is closed. But I do wonder if you are implying that I should know that you are an admin, that your edit on that page is of part of you job as an admin, and you don't have to answer for your edits should other people consider your edits to be wrong-headed (and stated quite clearly why it is wrong)? As far as I can see, you did not bother to reply to the points in my initial comment except to issue a warning. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

See [15] for an "interesting view" of reliable sources and BLPs. I still find the DM reliable for sporting and general news etc., but not all that great for contentious claims about living persons, but a former arb seems to demur on such a dichotomy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks

Ubikwit seems hell-bent on trying to get me linked to the American politics ArbCom case <g>, and I think you recall the "vast depth of evidence" against me at the Tea Party case ... as long as two arbs whom I regard as being "involved" stay away, it should be ok. Cheers and thanks. Collect (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hah, I think we simultaneously posted to each other's talk pages. Not at all, it's a pleasure. --John (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom

Was added to ArbCom case at 11th hour (sigh). Please note [16] and my amazement thereon. Collect (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw. ArbCom is one of the weak links of this project, along with DYK. Let me know if you want me to make a statement. --John (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Merci. AGK has a bit of involvement with me, but I doubt he will properly recuse - he was the only one who provided "evidence" of my misdeeds at the "Tea Party movement" case (and was also the one who proposed "kill them all" as a shortcut to actual decision-making there). I also find his opinions about BLPs to be odd ... as his belief that it is right to casually add "parties" considering:

I am displeased at being listed as a party to this case. In the event that this request is accepted (a prospect I make no comment on at this point) and that the final decision involves some variation of the usual "All parties are reminded to act like reasonable adults" remedy, I would be annoyed enough to retire from editing. Doubtless many of the other administrators whose involvement in these disputes is confined to attempts to keep editor conduct in line will be similarly annoyed at having been listed as parties to this request. AGK 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

his own position in the past.

I don't even remember who added Collect, but I do note there has been a distressing tendency to accuse Collect of malfeasance whenever right wing politics articles arrive on ANI. I find this regrettable and have in the past spoken out rather strongly against it. I don't want to go look and find out who added Collect - I'd prefer not to know - but if they are reading this I suggest they consider carefully before adding Collect to any such list in the future. I have seen no evidence that Collect has acted improperly on TPM or the associated talk page; I think this is a case of a hanging party deciding Collect bears guilt by association. We should avoid such accusations. KillerChihuahua 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

was ignored at that case (sigh) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I suffered from something similar in 2009 when a trigger-happy arb added me to a case at the last minute with little evidence and the sleepy committee added me to a restriction list. I believe it is now time-expired but it left me with great contempt for the quality of the process. --John (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

I didn't think my editing would be controversial!

The opening sentence of the 'Writing influences' section is very clogged, and for apparently no good reason. The Swiss People's Party is described as right-wing, even though the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria isn't given a description. I'm sure far more people have heard of Geert Wilders than of Srđa Trifković, yet the former is given a description and the latter isn't. It's not at all obvious what the point is of clarifying that Hindu nationalism is also known as Hindutva: this is the article for Anders Behring Breivik; if people want to learn about Hindu nationalism, they will click on the helpfully-provided hyperlink to the article about Hindu nationalism. The article for Patrick Buchanan is called 'Pat Buchanan', because that is the name he commonly goes by; so why shouldn't the hyperlink read 'Pat Buchanan' too? I'm sure, for the same reason, most Wikipedia articles that mention, for example, William Jefferson Clinton refer to him as Bill Clinton. If someone is in the position of not knowing who Taro Aso is, I doubt that such a person would benefit much, if at all, from learning merely that Aso is a "former Japanese Prime Minister". Again, that's what the hyperlink is for.

Renren8123 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing helpful explanation is not a good idea. We cannot depend entirely on the wikilinking as someone may use a printed version of the article and it still has to make sense in a hard copy. --John (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

But, as I've explained, it's neither helpful nor consistent, and that's true whether the article's viewed online or in physical copy. Why shouldn't the Freedom Party of Austria also be given the description "right-wing"? Why shouldn't Srđa Trifković be given a description, since he's far less famous than Geert Wilders, who is given a description? Renren8123 (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are worried about consistency it would be better to add material than to remove it. --John (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Renren8123 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Make sure anything you add is neutral and well-sourced. --John (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Phineas Gage". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 May 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1‎

I've requested temporary semi-protection for this page as the editor keeps using different IPs each time they edit. I don't know if page protection is extended to discussion pages but it is warranted here. It's interesting to see where these IPs geolocate to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Virginia? --John (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's where Kumioko is located (M/DC/V) and the comments about abusive admins was a tip off. Any way, the page is semi-protected for the next few days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I saw. Good move protecting it I say. I haven't become involved in that whole discussion (I don't think) but I do have an opinion on it. Do you? --John (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I used to have some respect for him, but I lost all of that in recent months. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

For the subject of the biography who objects to being called a pseudoscientist, or am I mixing up two dramas here? --John (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

For Kumioko. I don't know what this particular dispute is about--am I missing something? (It's fine to say 'no'.) Drmies (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. I am trying to go cold turkey on AN/I these days, at least for a while but my impression was that this CfD log concerned the matter I alluded to. I am not sure who Kumioko is, or whether there is a connection. It's ok that I don't know. --John (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well done on Gerry Rafferty. Thanks. I learn something new every day--I didn't even know he was dead. Maybe I should finally buy City to City. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw gee thank you Drmies. That's very kind. I was astonished to see an article on a fairly well-known and recently-dead musician full of crap from tabloids and even Facebook. There should be plenty of material from obituaries to write a decent article. --John (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And please feel free to chime in on Talk:Gerry Rafferty about sourcing. --John (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Erskine Bridge

Morning John. How are you getting on? I made a gallery of photos for the above page. I thought myself that I went a bit overkill with the photos. I'm not really up to speed with a lot of things on wiki, so I don't really know a lot about wiki polices and do's and dont's. Is there any way a smaller gallery could be done, maybe 4 photos?. I'll stick by whatever you suggest. Nice to talk again. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discolover18 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Aye, I'm sure there's a compromise there. Too many pictures can overwhelm the article. Did you take them yourself? --John (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't take them all. I got them from Wikimedia. I took a few, the new barriers, the plaque. I had loads of pics within the article. I scaled it down and then done the gallery. Maybe a gallery of 2 or 3 photos (leaving the ones that are already within the article). What do you suggest?? Just to say also, ive been messing with the bridge page for months and it still keeps giving me new info. It's pretty cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discolover18 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am really glad you are enjoying yourself, it's great fun, isn't it? As a rule of thumb, enough pictures to illustrate the article, and no gallery, is preferred. Pick the very best ones. --John (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. Discolover18 (talk)

No problem, it is my pleasure. --John (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It always feels a bit better when I know you've had a check over the page. My grammer is pants. Top man. Cheers Discolover18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No bother at all. It's a lot easier to check someone else's work than it is to write it yourself. You're a hard worker and a good writer. Thanks again. --John (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think your right, I had look at the gallery thing again. It does kill it a bit. I'll just leave as is. And all this time, that wee button in the corner signs and dates your posts. Jings o, give me strength, lol.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you fancy some "quality control" work...

Tom Pryce, scheduled as TFA for 11th June, is a 2007 FA that could do with a fresh pair of eyes. I've tweaked a few things but you will probably be able to find others - hopefully nothing that can't be fixed in the next three weeks! If that doesn't finish you off, how about Quatermass and the Pit? It's the oldest FA yet to appear on the main page (promoted in 2004!) and it would be good to run it before it reaches its 10th anniversary. Anything that you can do with these - or indeed any of the articles at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page (even if it's just to put a N by the ones that need too much work to run) - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. --John (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is some initial feedback, User:Bencherlite. Tom Pryce is a nice little article and I am quite happy for it to appear in its current form, although it is somewhat reliant on one source. I am trouble getting the reference formatting to work properly, something I am bloody awful at. User:Eric Corbett, any chance you could look at this for me? Quatermass and the Pit is heavily reliant on the DVD sleeve notes, which aren't the best source for non-trivial info. I wouldn't promote that one until some re-sourcing work can be done. Thank you for pointing me to two such interesting articles. --John (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll sort out the citations if nobody gets there before me. Pity about Quatermass and the Pit, might take a look at that as well. Eric Corbett 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's very decent of you. I tried to base the coding on Maggie, but the reference doesn't click to the book title in the bibliography like it should. I am sure it is something really obvious but it isn't obvious to me. Thanks for anything you can do. --John (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just to do with the difference between the way that {{citation}} and {{cite book}} work; the latter needs the addition of a "ref=harv" parameter, whereas the former generates the link automatically. Anyway, the citations are fixed now, but I'd say that there's too much that's uncited, particularly in the 1974–77: Shadow section, which I think would make this a dodgey choice for the main page. I had a minor problem at Enid Blyton's recent FAC for instance, because not every paragraph ended with a citation. Eric Corbett 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that; told you it'd be something silly! Now you mention it, that section is rather short of refs. I will see what I can do. Thanks again, --John (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote farm

We need to nip this in the butt before the Albert Einstein article looks like Stanley Kubrick that was written by a grade seven student. --Moxy (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Should we get a third opinion, or in this case a fourth opinion? --John (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Is a problem that this editor has ...he has no formal education in this regard whats so ever. as seen here nothing but copy and pasting. -- Moxy (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being so calm...I have a problem with plagiarists and this comes out when I am talking to those people. He has been banned from commons for copyright concerns as seen at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1 yes "Wikiwatcher" and "Light snow" is the same person. This guy is the copyright violation master in every way...copy and pasting of text and uploading copyright images. Its beyond me how editors like this are still here. -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am going to have to step away for the Albert Einstein article - Its to much for me to see edits like this. Removing talk about his work and replace it with Churchill quotes about Jews. I hope others can get through to these quotes masters - last think we want is our scientist articles to look like the grade 10 level articles of the old starts of Hollywood like Stanley Kubrick, Elizabeth Taylor or Mickey Rooney. I have tried in the past to fix these but to no avail. -- Moxy (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That was an awful series of edits. I have reverted and messaged Light show about it. --John (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Soccer in Australia, again

John, I don't know where to go with this. It's already getting far too nasty for me. I'd like your opinion please on what's going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Changes from "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team". I would have hoped to not have to bother you, but I just don't feel safe even trying to respond to the the most recent posts "disagreeing" with me there. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Leave it with me. --John (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm being cautious here, but I assume it's now OK to revert the edits that discussion was about. Right? HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Phineas Gage, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

New article

Morning John. As you know I've been editing the Erskine Bridge for a lifetime now. I think it's came on a bit. I've never tried my own article. I'm not that good yet. I have requested for an article to be done. However nobody's taken up my request. I was wondering if you would start an article for us, pretty please?? It would give me something different to get my teeth into, ye know. Thanks--Discolover18 (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course. What article did you have in mind? --John (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Erskine Ferry, as you can guess, it was replaced by the bridge. I can find loads of info online about it. It would be good to have a page about it. It's certainly notable.--Discolover18 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I suggest putting something together at User:Discolover18/Erskine Ferry, then when it's ready you can move it to Erskine Ferry. Sound ok? --John (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You want me start it??? Am hopeless mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I get what your meaning--Discolover18 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You can do it! I've filled in the first few words for you. See what you can do. Remember, good references are your friend. I'll help you as you go. --John (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for much mate, i'm really going to get into this tonight. Yeah, i'll probs need your help. Again mate........thanks a million.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw, that's nice. I really appreciate the work you are doing for the project. It's a pleasure to be able to help you. --John (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be really chuffed if I can manage to do this, i'm already chuffed with the bridge page and that wasn't even me that started it. I can't wait to finish work and get into this.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a great hobby, and it's a pleasure to meet somebody else who enjoys it as much as I do. --John (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Have a look at Woolwich Ferry and Renfrew Ferry to get some ideas about structure and content. --John (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, am in work just now, i'll need to do it tonight. Can't wait though. yeah, it's really enjoyable--Discolover18 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a start, I wish finish rest at home, thanks for help. Bye--Discolover18 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, do i now just cut it and paste it that bit??--Discolover18 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No, use the "Move" tab at the top to move it to "Erskine Ferry". --John (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence of cabalism

It's funny you linked to that album, I've had a copy of Skylarking on cassette in my pocket all day. -- John Reaves 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a very great fan. Oranges and Lemons is my current favourite. The Dukes of Stratosphear stuff is really special though. Great production by John Leckie and really knowledgeable pastiches. Er, the cabal is on codebook 25 today, isn't it? I always forget. --John (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Ceoil, are you a Dukes of Stratosphear fan? You usually have good taste, but you are more of a hard-liner than me I think. --John (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well skylarking was just reissued and Uncut did a nice 3 page piece on it. Jesus, Partridge and Todd Rundgren hated each other! Still, a classic. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

They didn't get on well but as I recall Partridge now gives Rundgren credit for being a great producer. --John (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Rundgren reigned him in a bit, which was probably needed. Also reissued this month - Nightclubbing. Have it on for the last few nights, sounds as fresh as ever. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I did some work on the Grace Jones article about a year ago and listened to some of it then. It sounded good to me, especially Nightclubbing and Living My Life. Sly and Robbie seldom go wrong. Infidels by Bob Dylan is another favourite from that era. --John (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the onl;y person who likes 80s Dylan.[17]! By the way I'm far from a hardliner ;) Bit of a tart when it comes to music (cough). Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That was good, I hadn't heard it. --John (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Its a great song; well produced for Dylan then - the tightly bound snare gives it a sence of urgency largely missing from his work in that decade. To me that track calls up and approaches Reed's masterful "New York"; the last great thing Lou gave us. Ceoil (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to agree with that but Songs for Drella and Magic and Loss weren't half bad either. --John (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? I always though you were a nice guy; but here we have to disagree. Sigh. War at at 33 1/3rd. Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

How dare you disagree with me! Seriously, de gustibus non disputandum. Loved the PE. --John (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Responded

Hey John, in case you don't have my RfA watchlisted, I responded to your question. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke, I did notice but I got distracted by other stuff. I still very strongly disagree with you over that issue but I support your candidacy anyway. Maybe we can talk another time about the cultural relativism of swear words and taboos. For now, you are obviously going to succeed, so a pre-emptive welcome to the cabal. --John (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that in the past, I have commented somewhere, forgotten, and missed a reply, so I generally try to either leave a talkback message or an echo notification as a friendly reminder. Thanks for your support, and yes, I would be more than willing to discuss the issue with you at some point; out of civil discourse, much good has come. Let me know what venue works for you, and a time (preferably after the RfA is over), and let's discuss it. Thanks again for your support, and happy editing. -- Go Phightins! 20:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If I still bothered to vote at RfAs I'd be voting oppose based on the stand you took over that article. But as I don't you have nothing to fear from me. Eric Corbett 21:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Aye, I've seen me oppose on a point of principle before now, and maybe not often enough. But I appreciate GP's candour and I find I get more forgiving of others as I get older. At least most of the time. See my user page. Of course that's just the cover story and in reality I am one of a power-drunk elite of neo-Stalinist propensities. Have you seen the cabal I set up? --John (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I find I get more impatient as I get older, but it would be a boring world if we were all the same. You have a cabal? Am I a member or is it admins only? Eric Corbett 21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) bzzt, have you seen ours? (missing people, hint, hint) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's restricted to people called John, unfortunately, or you would be welcome to join. So far only User:John Reaves has responded positively, but I have high hopes of getting the other three on board in the fullness of time. Hey, thanks for looking at that Welsh race driver article for me. I added a few refs and I think I can get it shipshape on time. Could you take a look? --John (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take another look tomorrow, but now it's time for some curry, some wine, and a slob in front of the telly. Eric Corbett 21:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. We had an excellent curry last night, and I've just opened an Erdinger. Take care. --John (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

co-gnome: you are welcome! - did you see that topicon gnome is the only one I show? - my creed is on the Main page right now, DYK: "singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear?" - it was my response to the sanctions that you, Eric, told me to handle ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wir, die Gnome, müssen zusammenhalten und sich gegenseitig zu schützen. Prosit! --John (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That was such a sad story. --John (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure, see? ;) - I filed it under "pride and prejudice" on my user page, with several chapters following, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

They are two very human faults, aren't they? --John (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

yes. I still miss him, and how Wikipedia could be with him, - now we have to do the work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi John. Sorry to bother you again after all your help, but I've now been hit with a rather bizarre sockpuppet investigation. As it relates to edits I made over a year ago I find the timing thought-provoking. Is there any chance you could keep an eye on it? Thanks again.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, that is rather elaborate. I have watched it and please ping me if there are developments that you think I have missed. I am sure you have nothing to worry about. --John (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I certainly hope not! The whole thing is ridiculous. I mean my editing history is colourful to say the least, but I think the stand-out fact there is that if I'm going to break the rules I just go right ahead and break them; I don't hide behind another identity like my accuser is doing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Try not to worry. Are you looking for articles to edit? Have you ever used the "random article" button? There is a lot of work to be done. --John (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have used "Random article" a few times! What I usually do is just fix or improve anything I come across though. I'm a freelance writer and use Wikipedia a lot for research, and when I see something that doesn't look right I take a break and try to fix it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm the same, it's an amazing hobby, isn't it? What do you think of Robert M. Bond? --John (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know what to say. That SPI is too complicated for me right now, but that's a statement about me, not the SPI--John, I'm involved with another real complicated one. At any rate, Fergus, accusing the accuser isn't a great idea, unless one has unbreakable evidence. John, you're a Brit, so you love soccer. Wasn't that an amazing game? Toodles, Drmies (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not accusing him; he admitted it himself - the only question is who he's a sockpuppet of.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Which game was that, sir? I have been writing a new article and have not had time for such frivolous pursuits. Looking forward to the World Cup though. --John (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Madrid vs. Madrid, madam. It was amazing. I don't get to see much over here, and it's too far away from me to care enough to keep up to speed, but this was really a fantastic game to watch. And no interference, since it was everybody's naptime! Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah shit, I forgot it was on. It must have been amazing. At the other end of the scale, we have Hibs-Hamilton today. --John (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, even after reading the first couple of paragraphs I still have no idea what that is about, though I did learn a new word, in the phrase "dreich Edinburgh downpour". I hope that whoever you were rooting for won! But how can someone living in Europe "forget" the final for the Cup With The Big Ears? Drmies (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw, I know. I daren't reveal who I wanted to win in that match lest it be held against me in the future. Hamilton were promoted and Hibs were relegated. So it goes. I used to be far more passionate about football but as I have got older I find it excites me less and less. Like a lot of things actually. The up side is that one gains almost god-like powers of wisdom. Do you like my new article? --John (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I like it, but can the lead say a bit more than that he died? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thank you. --John (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Freshly minted barnstar

	A gold (honorary metalloid) barnstar
	In appreciation of your incisive, illuminating and pivotal work on Metalloid. Please let me know if I can return the investment. Sandbh (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw, that was extremely kind of you. Thank you very much. I shall wear it with pride. --John (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Kronan (ship)

Thanks for your copyediting on that. When there's a lot to do, I get lazy for a variety of reasons, but I really should be picking up more of the things you're picking up. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries and thank you for your graciousness in responding to my concerns. --John (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Losing my temper

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

---

I'm being very good and sticking to my topic ban on Electronic Cigarette. However if somebody doesn't stop QuackGuru from turning it into a POV travesty I am going to seriously fucking snap. In the last two days the article has been gutted and the other editors are losing interest in the face of his relentless POV pushing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Leave it with me. It might be a few hours before I can properly look at this. Please be patient and don't do anything we'll both regret meantime. --John (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to put boxing gloves on so I can't type any more! Anyway, he's basically turning the article into a hatchet piece and if anyone else tries to change it he claims they're going against a consensus. Except if there is a consensus it's that the article is hopelessly slanted.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry, I got distracted by something else. I will pop over and ask for his side of it. Excuse me. --John (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that you look at the deleted comments on QuackGuru's page, once you get to it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

He claims I was using a source from Utah but the text is sourced using a review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I was reading the review - but don't worry, i've written this up at the Electronic cigarette talk-page, as yet another POV problem recently introduced[18] --Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the article should be semiprotected because there is IP socking to avoid public scrutiny. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_socking_or_did_editor_forgot_to_long_in.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 deleted the peer-reviewed source I originally added to the article. Now he wants me stopped? QuackGuru (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal to improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather than discuss this in two places, unless there is a separate issue you wish to discuss, we'll continue this at your talk and I'll archive this. --John (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Woops, i added a comment after you closed - it wasn't when i clicked edit. Feel free to remove it, and this comment as well. :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I thought it might be worth noting that I made a comment on this issue on QuackGuru's talk page, but he deleted the comment (reverted my edit) and described this revert as, "You are free to improve the text rather than point fingers. You can change "some young people" to whatever you want."

I appreciate that the previous discussion here is closed, but thought that this was worth adding since it now seems difficult to continue the discussion at QuackGuru's talk page. Here is the [diff] which obviously includes the deleted comment.Levelledout (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit I made was an improvement but you only want to point fingers at me. If there is a problem with the text why you don't make a specific proposal or fix the text? QuackGuru (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2014 (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.

Barnstar

Thanks a million mate. Quite chuffed actually. Cheers for the star. I've also a wee bit left to do on the ferry page. Thanks for all your help.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. You earned it. It's been a pleasure to work with you. --John (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Restoring other editors comments

Your edit summary said please don't delete this. I am are allowed to delete comments. Why did you restore a comment by another editor I deleted? QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that you do not delete parts of the conversation we are currently having at your talk page. You are welcome to delete it (or preferably archive it) once we are finished. I think it is reasonable for other editors to share their concerns with you at your talk. --John (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we finished yet? There is now a discussion on the talk page for the text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not quite yet. --John (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally made a mistake but I fixed it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyday there seems to be a controversial edit. Here is the latest edit. The lede should summarise the Electronic cigarette#Usage statistics section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked the IP a few questions. TheNorlo and an IP added the same text to the image. I think the IP is not logging in to his account. QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article to prevent this sort of disruption. --John (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You restored another comment I deleted. I deleted this comment from my talk page. I am allowed to delete comments from my talk page. Please don't restore it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I will not restore any more items that you delete from your talk page. I will block you instead. --John (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Apart from active block notices. Those you are not allowed to remove. --John (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I will point out that whatever the merits of the block on the electronic cigarette issue are, you went off reservation on this isue. If QG wanted you and Jayaguru-Shishya to move your conversation off of his talk page, that's his right. Moving the comments to your own page would have been fine, but restoring them to his wasn't. Giving the appearance that removing comments from his talk page was part of the reason you blocked him was especially bad form.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with it, and have explained why at User_talk:QuackGuru. --John (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not just my opinion (nor "rubbish", as you so quaintly describe it), it's long standing policy and guideline. There's an extremely limited amount of material that an editor cannot remove from his talk page, and a discussion between two other editors is not on the list. Note that I'm not complaining about the block itself: QG has been sufficiently shrill lately that the block is probably warranted. Using his abrupt removal of the material from the talk page as evidence that he wasn't being collaborative is also quite reasonable. I'm simply pointing out that his objection to your restoration shouldn't be used as the basis.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That makes more sense than how you put it before. I didn't block QG for removing anything from his talk, I blocked him because he was making bad edits and would not engage with me to discuss how to solve the problem. --John (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for the grumpy edit summary. --John (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Have questioned your block here [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James. Please provide evidence for "disruptive editing", because I want to see it. QuackGuru is among the most competent editors of medical articles on Wikipedia. Also, I've checked his recent edita, and they seem to strictly abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. I think your block is completely uncalled for. -Fasf14 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to do so. It's at User_talk:QuackGuru. --John (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What to do about...

This sort of thing? It's pretty much common commentary on those of us dealing with the page. There is an SPI currently up but can something be done about the constant commenting on other editors? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. I am sorry you have had this experience. I think I am WP:INVOLVED having copy-edited and reviewed the article. If it happens again let me know and I will see if I can get someone else to help you. --John (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's ongoing, quite honestly. Been dealing with this on and off for ... six months? Maybe a year? One reason I've gotten so little else done ... it's sapping my energy. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've left them a friendly message. If necessary I will escalate to one of the boards or ask a colleague to block. --John (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

They have accepted a voluntary topic ban for 200 years. Let me know if there is any more friction. --John (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for help

Would you mind looking at the prose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4? Although it has been reviewed by several copyeditors, there's a request that you (or Erik) specifically take a look, as the editor requesting your review believes no-one else is capable of helping, and thus justifies his objection. I am sure you are busy, but I'd appreciate your help here, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look. --John (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Are you done? Could you update the FAC page with your thoughts? Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert M. Bond

Hello! Your submission of Robert M. Bond at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thincat (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this template-speak. I was looking for an article to review and was really glad I found yours! My only question is about the QPQ review requirement. Do you need to do one or have you done one? Wikipedia:Did you know. I'm a bit of a novice at DYK so I don't know how to do a proper check. The actual review was fine. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking some more and can't find reference to Sadat and the MIG-23 in Davies, page 72. I can see something here and 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron gives this as a reference but I can't access it. I don't think it is any sort of a problem for DYK but it would be good to sort out. Ah! I've just found I can see from a snippet that it is stated on page 73 of Davies (searching on "Egypt") but I can't read that page (I can see 72)! Thincat (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I am not sure how helpful my contributions at Template:Did you know nominations/LORAN were, or whether they fulfil the criteria. I am a newbie here too. As regards the referencing, I just bought a copy of Davies so I will be overhauling the referencing using the paper copy. So much easier than Amazon preview. Thanks again, --John (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given the DYK a tick – I think that review should count. Anyway, if you have fewer than five DYKs you don't need to do a review anyway. The checking tool seems to be defunct. Thincat (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! --John (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Crinan, Argyll

I am pretty certain this article should be Crinan, Argyll and Bute which is a redirect. I'm sure we use present counties but I'm not sure how to fix it as Wikipedia's workings remain a mystery to me. I think you are a Scot, can you help? J3Mrs (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Or should it be just Crinan because as far as I know there is only one? J3Mrs (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be at Crinan. --John (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I can do that. J3Mrs (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So much for optimism, I couldn't do it as there is a disambiguation page with the same name. :( J3Mrs (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. --John (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again thank you, and sorry to trouble you. J3Mrs (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome. --John (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Erskine Ferry

Hi John. I'm in work at the moment. I was wondering if you could check the Erskine Ferry page for us and then clean up the bare url's. My Pc wont let me at the minute. It's annoying me knowing they are like that. Thanks for your help. --Discolover18 (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers mucker. --Discolover18 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Any time. --John (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Kronan-thanks

Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.--John (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User QuackGuru

Greetings! Do you mind taking a look at QuackGuru's most recent edits after his block expired? Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=611727162&oldid=611632570 As you can see from the edit history[20], he reverted edits that were already approved by 7 different editors. I restored the version that was following the consensus and clearly stated my edit summary as follows:

Revert this if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been 7 editors who have approved of this edit (Herbxue, Dougmcdonell, Jayaguru-Shishya, 2044.174.12.10, Jytdog, Bumm13). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#mediaviewer/File:Consensus_Flowchart.svg

.

There were 7 different editors who approved the version before QuackGuru's revert per Wikipedia:Consensus Flowchart. Now he has reported me to Kww at User (talk): Kww. Thanks in advance! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have a look. --John (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain what he's thanking you in advance for. I was going to let discussion play out. For what it's worth, I don't see a consensus for the removal, and can't reproduce Jayaguru-Shishya's math. He's been challenged to provide diffs showing that the editors he claims have supported his removal have actually done so, and has not done so. Of the seven he's listed, one doesn't exist (no IP address begins with "2044"), one doesn't seem to have mentioned the topic at all (Bumm13), and at least two are from editors that are actively attempting to promote pseudoscience (Jayaguru-Shishya and Herbxue), so his claim of consensus for removal certainly doesn't appear to be a slam-dunk.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Typo. 2044.174.12.10 Correct: 204.174.12.10. Could have been easily seen from Revision history. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I've asked the editor to give a rationale for the edit. Let's see what he says before we jump to conclusions, in either direction. --John (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It would appear to me that Jayaguru's reversion is more questionable than QG's edit.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am pertaining to WP:Consensus Flowchart. Since the revert QuackGuru made over the edit of Bexgro, you can easily see from the Revision history that how many users have kept editing the article remaining User Bexgro's edit. The number is 7 (correct me if I'm wrong). This includes that ip-address editor and me as well. If you liked to leave me and that ip-address (okay for me) out of calculations, there are still many editors who were just fine with the edit. And as I stated in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong,...". So what's the problem here?

Please show me the diffs where QuackGuru has tried to resolve this with other users? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User QuackGuru has totally abandoned talk at the article Talk Page and has not even tried to discuss this with other editors. My latest reply on QuackGuru's accusations on Kww's Talk Page can be found here: [21].

QuackGuru is resorting to an admin, ignoring all discussion at the article Talk Page, and now Kww is threatening me with a ban even I have clearly stated that QuackGuru's edit was against WP:CON. I have also in a settling tone asked them to correct me if I am wrong. This is not the first time of Kww's unprofessional administrative behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:CON:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time.

As one can see from the Revision history, the edit by user Bexgro enjoyed consensus per WP:CON for edits by 7 different editors until QuackGuru's revert[22]. If I am interpreting the WP policy wrongly, I'd appreciate to be corrected. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Before I even look at this in detail, please be advised that I care not a fig for traditional Chinese medicine, but I am highly averse to seeing tendentious editing in any of these areas. --John (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The continuous whitewashing of TCM is getting rather tendentious. Even though I don't edit the article or talk much, watching is a constant drain on my time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk · contribs)'s comment here talk:TCM and others does not make for a collaborate environment. In fact, it is quite contentious. Removal of the word "Pseudoscience" from the lede was discussed at length here, yet Jayaguru-Shishya removed it again here claiming "consensus". This appears to be 'voted' on often. Jim1138 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here. I posted recently on User talk:QuackGuru about it. Thank you for the nudge. I will be looking at the behaviour of all editors there. --John (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for playing a major part in working towards a solution of the situation at the Chemistry Project. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. Everybody needs help sometimes. I hope my involvement will be helpful. --John (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Scottish mythology template

Hi John, I noticed you were just editing the Scottish mythology template - I was going to ask Eric about it later as I was trying to add it to a couple of articles this morning. I couldn't work out how to get it to be in a 'collapsed' state, although I did eventually work out how to add Kelpie, Water bull etc to it. Obviously it was just far too early for my brain to be working but it still doesn't seem to have kicked into gear so could you tell me what I need to add to collapse it - if it's possible, please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Thanks for your edits to the Kelpie article!

I ought to know but I don't know. I'm sorry. Maybe one of my TPS will help you? If not I will try to figure it out later. --John (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(watching) try "state=collapsed", and if it doesn't work, change the template, model {{Benjamin Britten}}, where management of visibility is shown at the bottom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did try "state=collapsed" earlier - and again just now - with no success. I had a go at changing the actual template after looking at {{Benjamin Britten}} but it just doesn't want to co-operate with me! I'll leave it be for a while in case I manage to inadvertently break everything ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not clear, the parameter should go to the article in question. (Britten: the articles on him and major works have it open, on smaller works collapsed.) I hope I was successful installing the option in the template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for trying but it's still in a non co-operative mood! Don't worry, I had just thought it might have been handy to use but can leave it off. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Where do you want to use it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Water bull and Blue men of the Minch. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a bug in the template, which I've now fixed. Eric Corbett 13:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. It's a lovely article, good work. --John (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd been looking at that article on and off for years, and eventually with SP's help decided that something really needed to be done about it. I'm now wondering how many other Scottish mythological creatures there are. Eric Corbett 14:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

PONY!

Pony!
Congratulations! For your help with California Chrome, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Thanks! --John (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor I blocked for post at Talk:Frank Calvert

I didn't see your warning when I blocked him - after discussion with another sysop who had warned him some time ago. If you want to unblock I won't wheel war obviously, but given the discussions on his talk page I think it was warranted. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I saw the block and I did think about blocking myself. I appreciate the note but really it's ok. --John (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you seen his unblock request? Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now. I think the block was proper, but I will let someone else review. --John (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good decision. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

Was wondering if you could look at the Albert Einstein article again. I am trying to keep up with all the quotes being added but I just cant keep up with Mr snow. I started a conversation about the last set of edits ...but he did not join that conversation and has moved on to a new section. Not asking you to look at the article as an admin I am asking because your a good copy editor when it comes to fixing the quote problem. Lots a trivia being added and Nazi stuff - article is going down hill fast. -- Moxy (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I will take a look. --John (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not much I can do here the editor could care less about the concerns raised by others. Will let the editor finish the quote spam and fix it all when they have moved on to quote spam some other article. This is one of the examples of someone that makes work for others......people still having to dealing with his last user name image problems Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1. Obviously the editor has a problem with me so I will back off on this article and let others deal with him. All the best...thanks for your input. -- --Moxy (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, that was interesting. Thank you. --John (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bon Secours / Irish Mail issue

You recently pointed out on the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home talk page that tabloids (specifically the "Irish Daily Mail") were a poor source of information; so I wanted to ask for your help bringing some additional sanity to the "Bon Secours..." article. If you look at the nominally reputable media outlets that have covered this story and trace their sources step by step, you'll find that most of the information originally came from another tabloid, the "Irish Mail", which is so cheesy that I don't think we could call it a "reliable source". But the "Washington Post" quoted it while kicking off the current scandal coverage, and other news outlets quoted the "Post", and so on until CNN, NBC, ABC, etc were all screaming about "800 dead babies in the septic tank" - a claim which the "Irish Mail" had initiated, as far as I can tell. Then the alleged source of the allegations - Catherine Corless - began complaining that the media was distorting her comments and distorting the entire issue beyond all recognition. In other words: most of this is nonsense. Corless never claimed she found "800 babies in the septic tank" - a tabloid made that up - and everything else since then has been the result of layer after layer of embellishment as the original lie has been recycled over and over, with the tale growing more outrageous with each retelling. Wikipedia shouldn't be perpetuating tabloid trash - even if "reliable" news sources are unprincipled enough to repeat the tabloid trash - especially since it entails serious allegations against living people.

Yes, regular news media outlets would usually be considered "reliable sources"; but if a specific news article is ultimately based on information from a tabloid that we would never consider reliable, then that specific news article should also be considered unreliable and should not be used. I won't have much luck convincing most of the current people editing the "Bon Secours..." article - I've had to struggle just to include some tiny degree of balance - so I was hoping that since you're an admin you could help solve this problem. Ryn78 (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I am not acting as an admin here but of course I will try to bring some thought and experience to the matter. Leave it with me. --John (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As I expected would happen, Asarlaí has continued to systematically remove what little balance I had added. He doesn't discuss anything on the talk page, but just keeps removing quotations from the involved parties and rewording it to sound as if the only dispute is the size of the mass grave. This is nonsense, because no mass grave has been confirmed and not a single skeleton has actually been found. What we have are claims by two young boys in 1975 who said they found about "twenty" skeletons, and speculation from Catherine Corless, who has disputed the media's spin on the subject. And the whole thing originated from a tabloid. Since an edit war is developing and Asarlai hasn't discussed anything, I'm hoping you'll step in. Ryn78 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up. I will have a think about it and see about intervening. --John (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for pointing for minor edits. It was simply because I forgot to click. And thank you for checking my grammar as well, it is helpful since English is my secondary language.Gamera1123 (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, you are welcome. Are you a Russian speaker? --John (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks. Gamera1123 (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --John (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Marie Lloyd

Thank you for your excellent copy edits on the above. It's surprising what a fresh set of eyes pick up on so late on in the day. I did revert the family image size back though as it was a little too small. I hope you enjoyed reading it! Cassianto^talk 09:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, not at all. It's a lovely article, thank you for helping write it. --John (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robert M. Bond

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. It's an interesting story, isn't it? --John (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. On my way here, quietly, more to come, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that was relatively painless

I didn't insert most of the material you removed, so I don't feel too territorial about it. Some of it I was happy to see go; that weird stuff about the Smiths and radicalism was the fossil of a particularly nasty edit war that I was too afraid to remove in case it started up again. Just one question though; you described the writing you removed in the films section as "crufty"; now I admit it read a bit like a movie magazine, but I don't see how it is crufty. Maybe I just have a different definition of crufty. Serendi^podous 12:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Cruft is in the eye of the beholder but I think you will agree the article looks better now. --John (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

One thing I don't get about this "overquoting" thing; isn't it OR to interpret what other people mean when they speak? Isn't it better to just post the words unaltered, and leave interpretation to the reader?Serendi^podous 09:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, though I can see why you might think that. Our policy encourages summarising quotes, and only using a full quote in certain limited circumstances. --John (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort on behalf of PP

Will keep you in mind for thorny problems. Secondary educator, or post-? If the former, you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Aw, no problem. Thanks for signing up. Secondary, I love it. --John (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@John You might take a look, say once a week, in at Natural product. Testy relationship between two experts that have gotton off on wrong foot, and so it is now as much about egos as content accuracy (though I, as one of them, am trying to move beyond it). See Talk to start. I ask no preferential treatment; tell it like it is, and if I am in the wrong, I will try to make the necessary amends. For sake of article, though, it needs disinterested admins stopping through. See below for closing offer re PP. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a quick look?

Hi there John! There is currently a dispute at WP:ANI concerning supposed personal attacks by another user. I don't know if there is a WP policy considering deliberate distraction of conversation, so could you please take a look at this peculiar post by user QuackGuru[23]. The dispute as a whole is a rather lengthy one, but I'd like to ask you to take a look at that peculiar comment as it is so blatantly distracting from the original topic.

In short, the WP:ANI is about personal attacks, and I left a comment at that discussion. However, user QuackGuru is refusing to stick to the topic and he has brought a whole army of diffs that are mainly dealing with disagreements over individual edits at different articles and he is actually attacking there against me as well. That has absolutely nothing to do with the WP:ANI in question.

QuackGuru is refusing to discuss the question in hand, and he is deliberately distracting the topic. I don't find such behaviour appropriate. If you could take a brief look at it (it is quite easy to see), it'd be highly appreaciated! Cheers! =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification: I am not part of that WP:ANI; I just left there my comment and vote. However, now I am being attacked and harrased by user QuackGuru. Here is a small taste of his post:

Jayaguru-Shishya, do you agree your behaviour has not changed since your unblock? Jayaguru-Shishya, do you think you may have misused this administrative noticeboard.[24][25] User:Kww warned you "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block". QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

.

QuackGuru is brining his harrassing attacks against me to forums they don't belong (if harrassing attack belong anywhere in the first place). The diff were found here: [[26]]. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. I will have a look. It may take a few hours. --John (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DPL bot. --John (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

New articles

Morning John. I was wondering if you could start 2 articles for us. I don't know how to do it. They are the Mar Hall Hotel and the Erskine Hospital. They are both mentioned in the Erskine page however I believe that they are both notable enough on their own right. Let us know what you think. It will give me something else to get my teeth into. Thanks for your help.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I will try to do this this evening. --John (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers John--Discolover18 (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. I've done an article for the Mar Hall Hotel. I think ive submitted it somewhere on wiki??? Can you check it out for me if possible. User:Discolover18/sandbox is where I think it is. Thanks for your help. --Discolover18 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Sorry I forgot to help you. I can do Erskine Hospital for you. I'll put it at User:Discolover18/Erskine Hospital. --John (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. How you getting on?? I've got the mar hall one submitted now. And also I do have a draft of the Erskine hospital. It's pretty good actually. I've also took some photos and put them on Wikimedia. Am getting pure into this. I just wanted to say also, it's really good that you volunteer your time on this. It is really good of you btw. Thanks for all your help mucker.--Discolover18 (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Aw, that is very generous of you. You are very welcome; when I started off in 2006 people helped me until I got the hang of it and it is an honour and a pleasure to be able to do the same for others. As always, lewt me know if I can do anything to help. --John (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Ive near finished the Erskine Hospital page. Ive still some to do. However if your bored. You can check it out. If ive made any stupid mistakes can you fix them or let me know. It's no finished yet mind. The Mar Hall one is though. Taking ages getting reviewed that one. Cheers mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! I had a wee footer with the two articles and moved your draft into mainspace so others can see it. --John (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

John, this might be best if you handled it.

Remember Soccer in Australia?

At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Football/Soccer: too late to comment? we have an editor wanting to re-open discussion. I know that among the thousands of words written on the topic there was some discussion of a restriction on re-opening discussion within a certain time frame, but right now I can't find any mention of it, at the RfC on that page, or anywhere else.

Did we formally document that restriction? Do you want to say something in response to that editor? HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the restriction on re-opening the discussion was in relation to the title of the main article. I think the general naming matter was specifically left open. Let me refresh my memory. --John (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI Case

I don't have much experience with Sockpuppet cases, if you'd take a look here and let me know how I did, I'd much appreciate it :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 12:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, though I am not much of an expert in this area either. --John (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disregard, DoRD cleaned it up. Thank you! ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 13:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Re-evaluating_admin_decision_from_September_2013 prokaryotes (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on problematic edits and behaviour

Hi, John! I've seen that you are an administrator. I want to bring to your attention problematic edits and behaviour from some users (like user:McSly and user:Johnuniq and others) on talk:cold fusion regarding a problematic use of archiving to hinder legitimate discussions of article's content. User Johnuniq especially took the liberty to modify/delete several times other editors comments to change meaning and when confronted he deleted objections to his edits from his talk page using a problematic reason by taking advantage of ambiguous/permissive procedure of what can be removed from talk page. I think that this pattern of edits is not acceptable. (It is interesting to mention that user Johnuniq seems to be in close connection with some administrators like Dougweller, Bishonen, JzG from whom he has tacit approval. The last mentioned administrator has had a similar conduit to remove objection to his edits using various prolematic reasons - pretexts.)

I appreciate your feedback on this issue which interferes with the writing of good content of articles.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@John: Please see my comments at User talk:SlimVirgin#Obstruction of edits by some editor. SV tweaked the archive settings at Talk:Cold fusion so the 30-day archiving will not leave stale threads on the page. There seems to be an upsurge in excitement about cold fusion, judging by the talk page. Re my talk, I used rollback to remove this comment from 188.27.144.144—the comment is fine (apart from the "accidentally" stuff—plain talking is better at Wikipedia), but a couple of us were trying to apply WP:DENY at the time, hence my rollback. @188.27.144.144: Please add a comment with a suggestion for improving the article, rather than rehashing old discussions that were very close to WP:NOTFORUM violations when first posted. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Forum used as pretext to obstruct is also problematic.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

New edits by some user (TOAT) have appeared which emphasize the utility of not archiving hastily. TOAT has asked what is the utility of my request for quotes, what is the misrepresentation involved. The sections archived prematurely by some users that insist on archiving respond to this question of necessity of quotes hunt. I guess I'm entitled to restore some sections hastily archived.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be a terrible misunderstanding of what I've written, 188.27. If you're just going to keep repeating the same things that you've said before in the hope that you will get a different answer this time around, then unarchiving your old commments (for the fifth or sixth time) would be a further waste of time and effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sure there is a compromise here that will suit everybody. 188.27.144.144, what do you want to happen? --John (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And slow down, 188... without sentences that have stops (have proper English punctuation), you make it very hard for us to understood, which will inevitably lead to frustration, and bias against your case. Sorry to interrupt John, I am out of this, see below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein GA reassessment

I am going to do a GA reassessment of Albert Einstein over the next week. We still have quote after quote being jammed in. Its clear the editor could care less about the concers raised by others about the grade 10 additions. The only way I see the article being fixed is if there is a GA reassessment - because as of now any edit to the page gets reverted by the copyright master....even sneaky edit adding back material that had been previous removed after a talk. Would love it if you were willing to help out during the reassessment next week. -- Moxy (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I will help in any way that I can. --John (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I just got am email from a friend that is willing to help also...we will be working on the article July 1st(Canada day). -- Moxy (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh cool. Ping me if I don't get over there on time. --John (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am the admittedly relationally challenged but

very experienced chemist that participated with you in the PP issue, including generating the initial long proposal. I respect and admire your effort with this editor, and offer my services to you, as you might need them, esp. for additional technical advice. If you go to his talk page, you will see my last (general) word to him, arising from a completely separate proposal he made, to rename the Bulk Chemicals category. Ping me as needed (and once to start, to let me know this received). Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Leprof 7272. I appreciate the offer. --John (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Seafood and Vikings

1. Hi. You have now deleted the following words twice on the page Vikings:

"...in some places even more so than meat. As a natural consequence of the large and diverse geographical regions settled by the Vikings, there was a large variety."

What is your reason John?

The content of the words are explained in many places and also in the specific refs I have added. If further details are needed, I can say that seafood was more important in many coastal areas of Norway, probably also in Iceland and some sources claim it to be the most important protein-source in larger towns. I haven't specifically looked or found sources on Faroe Islands, Greenland and other settlements. RhinoMind (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems self-evident to me and thus not worth saying. We are not being paid by the word, and brevity is a virtue. --John (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. But the first part about seafood being more important than meat in places in not obvious or self evident at all. I will reinstall this information. RhinoMind (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is some interesting aspects here: [27] RhinoMind (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How interesting. Thank you. --John (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

2. I have another issue in relation to the "Farming and cuisine" section:

The original words were:

The quality of the foods for common people were not always of a particularly good standard

And over time you have changed this to "The quality of food for common people was not particularly high." While I cannot argue against the brevity of the latter, it is important to reinsert the word "always". The food they ate, was sometimes of an even higher standard than what we consume or can buy today. This holds true for seafood in particular, but sometimes also for the meat. RhinoMind (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Point taken. Feel free to reword it. But in general shorter is better and we don't need to state every single thing. --John (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But making brevity a virtue, demands a very keen eye! RhinoMind (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw was that a yes to "...in some places even more so than meat." also? (we dont need edit-wars <--- ok, that was self-evident!) RhinoMind (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't want an edit-war either. You could propose your wording in article talk, or you could just try and pop it into the article. I will try to be less harsh in copy-editing it this time. --John (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(stalker) FWIW re "I haven't specifically looked or found sources on Greenland..." according to Jared Diamond in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, the Norse settlers of Greenland refused to, or at any rate didn't, eat much seafood (findings based on midden archeology) and according to Diamond that's easily the #1 reason the colony failed. The settlers insisted on trying to raise cattle, which was difficult and ultimately not sustainable, in deference to their cultural preference for beef as being proper food. Meanwhile the nearby native Inuit were thriving on seal meat especially, but the Norse disdained this. IIRC they did turn more to seafood at the end, probably from desperation. Whether Greenland was an outlier I don't know. I don't have the page number since the County authorities seized my library. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, and I suppose Diamond is a moderately reliable source for that, or if not, one can be found. Sorry to hear about your library by the way. That would break my heart. --John (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Enh, not taking it with me. Disassembled it mostly a few years back by discarding books that I'd already read and wasn't going to read again and books that made me look smart on the shelf but I wasn't actually going to read, and most reference works (online nowadays mostly). Freedom! Dunno about Diamond himself but he provides refs. He may be cherry-picking of course. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yes the topic about preference of seafood over meat (and dairy) for protein, might appear very dull and silly on a superficial level, but is in fact a rather interesting issue. The power of habit so to speak, was very strong in the Viking world and also in many present cultures in fact. To the Norse it was almost a religion, something known as Sidr. Since I wrote my first comments here, I have read up on it a bit and found out, that the first settlers in Iceland fx was having a very hard time there in the first generation. Partly because they insisted on practising their habitual ways of agriculture, farming and way of life in general. The climate in Iceland was so different and harsh, that it didn't work out and malnutrition was common. They learned the hard way, but they eventually learned. [28]

The claims of Jared Diamond is interesting, but controversial. I would not endorse putting this info up on the Vikings page. If it is put up, it will definitely need a solid explanation and it will be obligatory to mention it being a controversial hypothesis. I have an interesting source in this regard: Hunting, fishing and animal husbandry at The Farm Beneath The Sand, Western Greenland (by Inge Bødker Enghoff 2013). I haven't read the whole book, but there might very well be information there to even disprove Jareds hypothesis. RhinoMind (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw. Seen in a broader perspective, the Scandinavians/Norse have a history of enforcing unsustainable agricultural practices in their homelands. The forests were cut and burned, resulting in destructing and accelerating sand drifts, degradation of land to poor soils and heath, etc.. Up until the Bronze Age and part of the Nordic Iron Age, there were enough land and so few inhabitants, that these practises could carry on, but soon a rapid collapse occurred. Some are blaming this ecological collapse for the Jutes invasions of England and even the Vikings later invasions as well. In time, I will put some information up on Wikipedia about it. Human intelligence is often times very short-sighted. RhinoMind (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is fascinating. --John (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

sacrificed or killed?

Ok, I might not be known for my brevity, but I have another "small" issue in relation to the Vikings page. You edited my words on sacrificed thralls in the 'Social structure' section here. The word sacrificed is important. Because the victims was not merely killed, there are evidence of rituals. Because it shows a continuation of the human sacrifices in Iron Age Scandinavia.

It is just one word, but I do not want constant edits back and forth, so I am addressing it here. RhinoMind (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Let me tell you why I changed that wording. To modern readers, sacrifice means something different. It might mean not having a cappuccino or something. You also had some awful euphemism about "laid to rest" which I removed on the same edit. I could live with "sacrificially killed". Would that work for you? --John (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. lol couldn't help laughing a bit. Anyway if that's what it takes to engage some hipsters I dont mind. I'll throw that in. PS. guess you still write "Rest in Peace" on your gravestones? RhinoMind (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. RIP is still pretty common on gravestones, yes, but it isn't encyclopedic language. See WP:EUPHEMISM. --John (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(watching) Requiescat in pace. I have R I P on my user page, rather high up ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't know we had an article on that. I suppose we have one on just about anything and everything. --John (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

West Germany

You may have seen the discussion on my talk a while ago - about the birthplace of a person having to be West Germany when born in the area commonly (!) described by that name in that time. This includes me, and I would never say, never, that I was born in West Germany. The article name is ... well, better not say it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult area, and, as in all things here, we need to be governed by consensus. --John (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As explained yesterday, "consensus" = statusquo is sometimes hard to take, if the statusquo is undesirable, also facts should not be governed by consensus. Fact is that there never was a country named West Germany (or East Germany, or Westdeutschland, or Ostdeutschland), - an article of a simplified name might have a right to exist and serve some purpose, but please not for a real country = political entity, - it's too misleading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

When politics collides with real life, we get awkward situations that are difficult to describe. This was a classic example. --John (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

For purposes of identification for international trade, "Made in Western Germany" and "Made in West Germany" were normal markings from ca. 1950 to 1990. Earlier markings included the zone of Germany the item was made in. Ebay listings show "Made in East Germany" marking examples as well. Collect (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and an article West Germany could well cover that, but I was not made in West Germany ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Germany

Hello, John. I feel like I'm running up against some kind of a group of Germany page cabal who have now repeatedly removed and undone edits that I have made to the Germany page. These edits, I feel, follow the standard practices of Wiki editing. I have no idea how to deal with these editors who seem to have nothing less than a fanatical zeal to keep this section of this article exactly as it was before. Do you have any advice on what should be done in this type of situation. It seems more than apparent that using the talk page is useless (we've been having a conversation there for 2 weeks now without anything being resolved). The conversation always ends with "This is an FA article and has been for a long time therefore it should always remain unchanged" no matter how obvious the omission of facts may be. Another common tactic seems to be to start a new discussion tab. Any help or advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, John. Volunteer Marek has just personally attacked me in most of his comment: "IIIraute and walkee have a history of tag-teaming and supporting each other mindlessly in contentious discussions. Their edit warring on this particular article appears to be based on misplaced ownership (though I don't think either really contributed to bringing this article to FA) and some kind of revenge for the fact that Monopoly31131993 supported/proposed the inclusion of an image they vehemently disagree with." This is what I responded to and as I tried to point out completely uncalled for. I will not restore my comment from the page. I gave up trying to enforce a better tone on his part [29] but I'm frustrated that VM is always allowed to do so. Can you do something about it?--walkee^talkee 20:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. There may be a way to address this but I don't think the talk page is the place for it. --John (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you at least delete his message in the same way too? I feel it would be very unjust if not.--walkee^talkee 20:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I thought about that when I deleted yours, but his at least partly dealt with the subject. What I will do is message him and ask him not to personalise things in article talk. --John (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, though not just in article talks but also in edit summaries. Just glancing over the latest 30 edit summaries: "The tag team edit warring appears to originate in some kind of WP:OWN problem", "You're misrepresenting sources and using them as a cover for POV pushing", "You're confusing consensus with WP:IDONTLIKEIT", "that's appears to be just obscurantism. Demanding 'greater consensus' than regular consensus." (Obscurantism is "the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known").--walkee^talkee 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi John, how are you? I ended up using the image of Steve Albini, on Title TK, that you fixed up a while back (that I had originally included on The Amps' page).

Thanks again for your edits to The Amps. As mentioned before, I thought they benefitted the article. I was wondering whether you might possibly have time to also have a peek at Title TK. I have just nominated it for GA, and an extra pair of eyes is always good for quality. Of course, if you don't have time, no worries whatsoever. Thanks, and have a great day! Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I should have time to look over that at the weekend. --John (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

would you kindly

Take a look at the page in question and express a neutral opinion with regards to the trolling happening on the page you seem to follow? Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I want to do that, and I don't find it encouraging that you use language like "trolling" in regard to the dispute you seem to be having. --John (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for taking the time to put a template of two talkpages instead of using that time to actually help solve the issue at hand. Nergaal (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. If either of you reverts again you'll be looking at a good long block. --John (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Final Cut (album)

May I have a plain-English explanation for your reversion of my edit? I'm a bear of even littler brain than you, for I do not speak French. --Ben Culture (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Le mot juste means "the right word" and I think "bowdlerise" is exactly the right word here. --John (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I respect your opinion, but our own article for bowlderise, which re-directs to Expurgation (redundant link), says it's a "pejorative" term. The effect is that the article seems to say "The 'Not Now John' single sucks, because they took all the piss out of it by self-censoring." Do you see my point?

It's really just one example of a bunch of little things that make the article a badly slanted article. If I didn't already know the album well, the article would leave me thinking, "So it's a waste of time, then."

--Ben Culture (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to make this an all-day project for you, but I should add that I attempted to open a discussion on this exact topic before making the edit you reverted (although I had rewritten the sentence in a larger, overall edit which was reverted by someone else). Nobody replied to my comment on the Talk page. --Ben Culture (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Expurgation is a form of censorship which involves purging anything deemed noxious or offensive, usually from an artistic work." seems to capture it for me. What is your theory for why they changed the lyric? --John (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And, as a matter of interest, how do you come to be in conflict with the same editor at two separate articles? That is usually a terrible sign. I hope there is an innocent explanation. --John (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt any explanation forthcoming will be innocent. Eric Corbett 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Bowdlerization is a pejorative term for the practice"

"A pejorative (also term of abuse, term of disparagement, or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form of expression that expresses contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and/or disrespect."

We do follow our own definitions on Wikipedia, don't we?

To answer your first question, they changed the lyric because "fuck" is rarely broadcast on the radio -- their "Pigs (Three Different Ones)" slides by once in a while on FM radio, but "Not Now John" is much more bold in its use of "fuck". I'm not saying "bowlderization" is incorrect; I'm saying it's not neutral. And "altered" IS. Do you understand the difference?

As to your second question: I'm not at all sure. It seems Mr. Corbett has made me his pet project today. I've stopped responding to him. He was provoking me on another User Talk page, and I asked him to post any further insults to my own User Talk page. Why he is HERE, abusing your Talk page, I cannot possibly explain. Sorry.

Good day.

--Ben Culture (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can answer why Eric is here... it's because he's been here a while. He's been a regular on John's page for quite a while. As to the neutrality of "alter" versus "bowdlerization" ... alter implies that it was done for any number of reasons - bowdlerization because whatever was changed would not get past censorship - which, by your explanation, fits the situation, no? Thus, by your own reason for the change of lyrics, the b-word fits the situation to a T. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Again: I'm not saying "bowlderization" is incorrect; I'm saying it's not neutral. Wikipedia still strives for neutrality, right? Our own article refers to "bowlderization" as a pejorative term, a contemptuous and disrespectful term. It is insulting to the single and to the band that produced it. A simple re-write such as "... altered to "stuff all that", for a radio-friendly single ..." avoids all the pejorative. It isn't Wikipedia's role to judge the single. Neutrality is the tone to strive for. Do you understand this?

--Ben Culture (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric and Ealdgyth are always welcome here, as are you Ben Culture as long as you behave collegially. The discussion about choice of words should really take place at article talk, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject. Ben Culture, you haven't answered why you are in conflict with User:Parrot of Doom at two separate articles. I hope you didn't follow him from one page to another, because that is a no-no. Was it a pure coincidence that you are arguing with each other at Blackbeard as well as at The Final Cut (album)? --John (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We've done some good work together, notably Maggie Thatcher, so it's strange to see me being accused of abusing your talk page. Eric Corbett 20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 

I'm sorry this discussion is in the wrong place, but I HAD already opened it as a topic on the article's Talk page, and you didn't contribute to that -- you reverted without discussing -- and your explanation was not in English at all, much less plain English. Edit summaries are supposed to be plain English. I had to come here to ask you for an English explanation. Then, when I made my point to you -- "bowlderize" isn't incorrect, but it's not neutral -- you changed the subject.

You didn't tell me you were referring to Parrot of Doom. I thought you were referring to Eric Corbett. Mr. Corbett may be welcome here, there, and everywhere, but on that particular day, he sure seemed to turn up everywhere I was already involved. And yes, he is abusing your User Talk page, because his unproductive and provoking comments disrupt my ability to have a civil discussion with you. He did the exact same thing on User talk:Parrot of Doom: (Ben Culture: You're not going to agree with anything I say, are you? Eric Corbett: Probably not. I find that I rarely agree with sanctimonious idiots.)

Two separate arguments with Parrot of Doom? No, John, that isn't happening. I have not had a "conflict" with Parrot of Doom on Talk: Blackbeard. I haven't said a word to him. I made my way to Talk:Blackbeard because I became interested in Skookum1's contributions (in the good sense). I posted my support of Skookum1, because I agreed with his edit ("Cognomen" IS a pompous, pretentious term!) Yes, as far as I'm aware, it's a coincidence that his edits were being reverted by the same Parrot of Doom . . . but, either way, it's a much BIGGER no-no that Doom used completely unacceptable Edit Summaries such as "ohfuckoff" and "get fucked".

Yes, when I saw that, I spoke up and said, This is Wrong. This is a Problem, because it is, and no admin I've met yet seems to have the courage to discipline him. Why do people like Parrot of Doom have special rights? You and I both know you'd block me in ten seconds flat if I posted Edit Summaries like "get fucked". Read Doom's little "rules" at the top of his User Talk page. Why does he get to make his own rules? Why does he get the special right to verbally abuse others, when most of us don't?

These are not rhetorical questions.

I tried talking to another admin about this. She basically threw up her hands and said What good could I possibly do? I know you, at least, are willing to block some users. Are some animals more equal than others?

Thank you for your time and attention.

--Ben Culture (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ships as "she", additional points

Hello John, if you are going to introduce a "summary" section ("executive" of otherwise), should you not allow comment on it? Any particular concern could have been raised on my talk page (and we could have followed a thread there - I agree with your procedure). I think the whole new section serves no useful purpose, except to expand on your contributions to the discussion on the various proposals, and I think that you should consider removing it. Davidships (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Would a subsection work? --John (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, at bottom I don't think that a summary of what you think about everyone else's views (or indeed about aspects that nobody had raised anyway) serves any purpose at all. Imagine if we all did that! If you choose to leave it there, in whatever form, it will undoubtedly attract comment. An objective drawing of the threads together would be a different thing and would recognise that there are some, of both persuasions, who are not stuck in their trenches. Davidships (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Every so often in my eight-year career on Wikipedia I see levels of bone-headedness that I could not previously have imagined. That there are people editing an online encyclopedia who do not know what a pronoun is, or do not know what sexism is, or think "political correctness" is something terrible, is noteworthy and interesting and needs to be called out. I caused offence a year or so ago when I called someone's actions "retarded", so let's not use that word. Let's say it is surprising to me that people with such limited minds and restricted life experience are even interested in the sort of work we do here, let alone that they feel able to make demands about our policies and how we interpret them. --John (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please pardon the intrusion, but I could not agree more with that last comment. From my perspective, the ones that truly scare me are the Editors who are on a "mission" to fix, correct, and/or add "balance" to WP; and in the process do anything but. Granted I have come to appreciate the curmudgeonly, veteran stalwarts like Andy the Grump, but the Users (registered and IP alike) that claim to have a specific purpose come across as some kind of content-wrecking virus. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It takes all sorts I suppose. But there is something surreal about discussing MoS usage of pronouns with people who don't know what a pronoun is, or who think English uses grammatical gender. Oh well. --John (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks

Hi John. The banner below always had a hyper link to Reflinks. I used it all the time. Do you know where it went?? Am trying to do the references on Park Mains High School. It has only been like this since today. Thanks mate. {{Cleanup-bare URLs|date=July 2014}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discolover18 (talk • contribs)

Reflinks is gone as of today. I am devastated as I also used it all the time. --John (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What do we do now then???--Discolover18 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what can be done. Let me think. --John (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the error message. --John (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And here is a discussion about what can be done. --John (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a bummer about Reflinks, I liked that wee thing. If a new thing gets set up. Can you do the links on Park Mains High School and my latest article Erskine Bridge Hotel. I've near completed my Erskine Wiki experience so I may stop hanging around that much.--Discolover18 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be back up as of now. --John (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Any chance you can check an article for us. It should be in my contributions. Its the Erskine Golf Club. Its taking ages for it to be published. Cheers mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nice work. --John (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bon Secours Home article, again

A new edit war has developed on the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home article, this time by Bastun. He's now canvassing support for people to help him, and is misrepresenting my edits and arguments as well as misrepresenting what the media sources say: see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=615218415 Ryn78 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking. --John (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Our friend User:QuackGuru again

Greetings! It seems that our friend User:QuackGuru is filing ANI -cases on a regular basis. Now, however, he filed a case against three different editors at the same time! This starts to look like a serious misuse of WP Noticeboards. I am asking you to take a look because you are familiar with QuackGuru's problematic history.

It seems that QuackGuru is bringing up some individual edits that he disagrees with, and uses WP:ANI as forum to do it. I have a clear conscience on each edit: all my edits are discussed at the Talk Page and well-explained in the edit summaries, and if I have made a revert (usually somebody has been removing text and sources from the article), I have done it because there haven't been decent explanations in the edit summaries nor any discussion at the Talk Page. This can be clearly seen from the diffs and quotes QuackGuru is bringing up as well.

I think that QuackGuru is using the WP:ANI as a forum for defaming other users who disagree with his edits. The three ANI -cases he filed are found here: Incidents#User:Herbxue_again, Incidents#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_again, and Incidents#User:Middle_8_again Incidents#User:Middle_8_again. I would really appreciate if you could take a look into this. I think misusing the WP Noticeboards and poisoning the well on such forums isn't really nice. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting: administrator Kww also warns QuackGuru on QG's Talk Page about his behaviour[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=614670663, telling him to consult him first before going to noticeboards. As Kww clearly puts it: "Bringing three people that you are in a conflict with to ANI and SPI simultaneously without some very good evidence connecting the three accounts looks more like a temper tantrum than a serious effort to use our noticeboards properly."

I think this clarifies the big picture. However, QuackGuru has already bringed the matter to WP:ANI, and in case of misuse of the noticeboards, I think it's something that should be reacted to. Thanks for your time John! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. --John (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Context is important. I think that QG is likely right that sockpuppeting continues in alternative medicine articles. I think he's likely right that the editors he has named are, to varying degrees, detrimental to the process of building an encyclopedia. It's his method of argumentation and presentation that is problematic: it's too shrill, and likely to make the reader shut down before considering his arguments properly. If we can channel that passion in a constructive way, we might be able to fix some of the problems that plague these articles.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all three of your statements Kww. I do have some concern that QG seems not to have learned from a previous block I made on him. I wonder if a time-limited topic ban might be in order? It's apparent that this is all QG does on Wikipedia, and as you say it creates more heat than light. We might be better off with QG editing peacefully in another area than burning out himself and other editors if he continues in this vein. Thoughts? --John (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to take him away from the editing in the area. He serves a valuable role in making certain that the pro-woo editors don't distort the articles, and that's an exhausting task that no one else will step up and do. What I think would be reasonable would be requiring him to get approval from an admin before starting a new SPI or ANI report.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Well he can't go on like this. I saw your post at his talk and I agree with what you said there as well. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, his methods are unhelpful and outside our community norms. And I only partly agree with your pro-woo/anti-woo dichotomy; this is not a situation where one's enemy's enemy is one's friend. I prefer a more nuanced approach and I would be prepared to issue another block if QG were to continue his unhelpful editing practices. This would be a last resort if all else failed. Let's go with your idea for now; I think it's a minimum for the sake of our sanity. --John (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the "exhausting task" Kww mentioned doesn't serve as a reason to overlook QuackGuru's behaviour, especially this ANI case in question. In my opinion, all the editors must be treated equally, with same rights and under the same rules.

Especially with terms like "pro-woo editors", I'd be extra careful. Suggesting that one editor (like QuackGuru) should be granted some privileges over WP Policies because there are some "pro-woo editors", that should be absolutely out of question. In my personal opinion, the edits of these "pro-woo editors" speak for themselves: many have already got banned (most recently Klocek and Neuraxis have been under discussion). Hoever, the ANI in case should be taken seriously.

I think it might be best for both QuackGuru and others that QuackGuru's editing capabilities would be taken into full utility in some other areas. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It would probably require a consensus at AN or ANI to make such an arrangement enforceable. I'm at work right now. I'll post something tonight or tomorrow and see if I can get a consensus that he needs mentoring and that I would be suitable in the role.—Kww(talk) 21:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Good offer. I have asked QG not to do any more of this stuff in the meantime. I thought about closing all four discussions but will leave them open for 24 hrs or so in case there is any legitimate discussion to be had. --John (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it somewhat interesting that Kww is getting involved with a case concerning QuackGuru again. I think Kww should step back with this. In this WP:ANI -case (again filed by QuackGuru)[30], Kww gave me a warning for ... no reason ever mentioned. The whole case was absurd: I was being accused by QuackGuru for "following him to other articles", without any evidence being presented. Kww stepped in, closed the case and gave me a warning.

In this 3RR -case concerning QuackGuru again[31], Kww stepped in one more time. On my Talk Page, he said[32]: " "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block". Now it seems that Kww is allowing hte abuse of administrative noticeboards for QuackGuru.

Same rules for all editors, I'd say. Is there any reason to make exception here? I appreciate Kww's honesty that he is ""the most sympathetic admin for QuackGuru's cause"[33], though. I think he'd better step aside with this one. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose is to provide QG with a reviewer that he will not fear is attempting to shut him up, but will prevent him from running amok. Note that I didn't interfere with QG's block in the past because I recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate. Your belief that I consider you and Herbxue to be disruptive editors is quite correct, however. You actually should be pleased that I am volunteering to do this: if I approve something to go forward to a noticeboard, I'm pretty much precluded from acting on it directly.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Suits me as long as you are imposing the same rules to all the editors: it doesn't seem reasonable that you are threatening others with indefinite block[34] while being ready to apply different rules to editors "that you feel sympathetic with". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

QG has provided a lot of difs showing some degree of disruption. Do not have the energy to look into it in detail right now. In a topic area with a lot of socks such as these [35] it is amazing that this topic area received decent reviews in this Mar 2014 journal article [36].

Kww suggestion to review QG difs regarding other editors before they go forwards to the larger community I think is a good one. John's previous block of QG for removing comments from his own talk page has gotten a change in behavior, as QG now leaves talk page comments and lets the autoarchive tool take care of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks all for the positive comments. I have never blocked, and will never block, for removing comments from your own talk page. QG had his talk page access removed last time for doing this but the block was for something quite different, as was explained at the time. --John (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how this is going to serve it's purpose. Within a time period of 24 hours, QuackGuru has turned to Kww already twice, proposing two different cases against the very same editor, Middle 8. First, proposing an SPI[37], and second, proposing a WP:AE report[38]. Oh boy... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this what one really was looking for? Up to this point, QuackGuru has turned to Kww 2x more again: suggesting a 3rd case against user Middle 8[39], and now attacking against user Kshilts[40]].

Why is this a problem? For two reasons. First, because instead of QuackGuru himself filing a case - and probably getting sanctioned for the misuse of WP administrative boards just like any other one of us - he is actually able to hide behind the back of an administrator who openly states to be "sympathetic for QuackGuru's cause"[41]. Second, this very admin, Kww, is giving warnings based on what QuackGuru reports to him, without any chance for the one being accused to defend himself/herself. This seems like a conviction without a trial. Here are two occasions where Kww is giving an ultimatum: [42] and [43].

In my opinion, there is a serious need to consider sanctions more severe for QuackGuru. I am convinced that his editing might be a big help in other topic areas, but it also seems that these very alt. med. articles aren't just for him, and might turn out to be too difficult and stressful. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

JS, there is no "conviction", and hence no need for a trial. Those are warnings based on the visible evidence at the time, and are intended as warnings not to proceed further down a wrong path. There were no sanctions...yet. Any experienced editor or admin can give such useful and friendly warnings. They may not be received in that spirit, but that's what they are.

As to QG's editing style, I have already gone on record several times that he tends to not communicate very effectively, repeats himself, manifests IDHT behavior, and all that creates problems, but he's improving. Just the fact that he's not constantly hiding content on his talk page makes it easier to communicate with him. That's a collaborative thing to do.

While I sympathize with his general POV on fringe matters, I generally don't agree with some of his methods, so I often just stay clear and let him sail his own sea. It gets him into trouble at times, but he also serves a useful purpose because he's fearless with those who have no crap detectors and who try to defend it here. I have also noted a definite improvement lately, although his style and POV are still going to offend pushers of fringe POV, such as yourself. That's actually a good thing, and definitely not sanctionable.

You, by complaining, may actually end up falling victim to the boomerang effect, so be careful. Your attempts to weaken a defender of mainstream POV and mainstream RS appears to be a move to make it easier for you to insert garbage into articles, and we can't have that. I can understand your frustration with his tactics, but you need better arguments to take him out of circulation. He's generally worth far more than you. In fact, I haven't yet noticed anything of worth with your edits, but maybe I've missed something. If anything happens to him, it should be a warning to communicate better.

What I'm going to say next is general, and not specific to this situation with QG, but it's important for you to understand. At Wikipedia we find material referenced to RS of all kinds. Some document truly factual and reliable facts about science and medicine, and others document fringe POV and rejected ideas found in alternative medicine. In connection with editing such matters, there are editors of various persuasions who will "push" their POV, as found in those RS.

Here's where it gets tricky. The same actions can be interpreted very differently, and rightly so, so we don't have "the same rules for all editors." Contrary to your statement above ("... all the editors must be treated equally, with same rights and under the same rules."), we don't do that. Pushing a mainstream POV, using mainstream RS, is not usually described as "POV pushing". It's actually defending the facts, since scientific evidence is by far more factual than fringe speculations, and the fringe sources used are generally far less reliable, and only good for documenting that "so-and-so actually does believe this BS."

Pushing a fringe POV is rightly condemned as "pushing a fringe POV", and it will get you into trouble for "advocacy", so you can see that editors can be treated quite differently for what may seem to be the same actions. Editors who defend mainstream science are never accused of "advocacy", because they have good sources backing them. It's not just a POV or speculation. We encourage the defense of scientific facts with high quality sources, and discourage attempts to legitimize fringe and unproven ideas using crappy sources. We simply don't like a false balance. The weight definitely tips in favor of the best sources, and they are inevitably on the side of mainstream science and medicine. If you think that's not fair to alternative medicine, then think again. It has just as much chance of becoming mainstream as anything else, if it can be proven. Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argued that:

"It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine – conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments." Source

We give more credence to methods and ideas backed by rigorous evidence, and the sources which document it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Bon Secours page

Please see the talk page for 2 edit requests. Trying to edit from a mobile phone is probably a shortcut to insanity. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Will take a look later tonight. Thanks. --John (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Beckham

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, just a quick note on this. I changed fashion to couture in order to distinguish from other fashion brands VB had previously launched (jeans, glasses) and her other fashion forays with other brands. I can't call it own brand as she'd previously used her name on jeans and it is technically couture. Fair point to take the quote off in the lede – was possibly making it overlong – but The Independent information, ref and quote about guest editing French Vogue and being in a panel discussion with the head of Parsons NY was an attempt to describe the transition VB has made from not being taken seriously to being taken rather seriously in some quarters. It also goes some way to addressing the banner about info being out of date. Any objections if I write that info back in? Libby norman (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought "couture" sounded rather fancy; as I understand it, it is just a French term for fashion. Can we take this to article talk? --John (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but couture doesn't just mean fashion. Haute couture (basically, made to measure as opposed to ready to wear) would be a term for the high-fashion brands, such as Chanel, Versace and so on, and that's the sector her label is in. What about the section you lost from The Independent which brings VB up to date and describes her work with Vogue France and Parsons NY? Many thanks. Libby norman (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2014 (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.

Battle of Öland FAC

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. It looks great. I will review it later today if I get a chance. --John (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fluorine

Hi, thanks for copyediting the article! The changes made seem to be nice and good, and I hope you'll continue.

I only have one question. I don't understand the change made for the metal fluorides table. Just for comparison, these are the former and the current tables.

Structural progression of metal fluorides
Sodium fluoride, ionic	Bismuth pentafluoride, polymeric	Rhenium heptafluoride, molecular

Structural progression of metal fluorides
Sodium fluoride: cubic lattice of alternating sodium and fluorine atoms with no distinct molecules	Bismuth pentafluoride: arbitrarily long, straight chain of atoms	Rhenium heptafluoride: discrete small molecule
Sodium fluoride, ionic	Bismuth pentafluoride, polymeric	Rhenium heptafluoride, molecular

I must say, I don't understand why the pictures have now two captions, and why they have to be of the same width. Just in case, these captions not seen in the former table were a rudiment when the table was constructed, and since the result seemed nice, nobody decided to touch them. If it were needed, they would be made seen, but they're not, since reader is expect only to realize the fact: the more fluorine atoms per each metal atom, the more likely is the compound to be covalent, which the subsection, in which the table is, tells. It doesn't really matter that sodium fluoride has the NaCl-like lattice. If you think people need to be explained what is the difference between covalent bonding and ionic bonding, we can give short parenthesized notes, that is fine, or maybe even a short sentence in the beginning of the Compounds section (before the Metals subsection). And yes, the BiF5 picture was longer than the ReF7 picture, but the bonds were similarly sized, so the difference was clearer.

But if I'm getting something wrong (which very well may be the case), please explain it to me.--R8R (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair points. Let me think about it. I have restored the previous formatting meantime. --John (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that :) Of course, take the time needed.--R8R (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For the birds

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.

---

Editors lost of the needless Mos debate over bird name capitalization were so far Sabine's Sunbird and Chuunen Baka, returned MeegsC (see So long, and thanks for all the fish), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting assertion and it's sad if it's true. Is there any evidence that one particular editor forced them to leave? People leave all the time. I have taken wiki-breaks myself. --John (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Natureguy1980 specifically names SMcC as the reason for his resignation, Chuunen Baka cites "the small-minded and ignorant bullying of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds editors by the MOS gang", and Sabine's Sunbird's final edit was this. 80.43.195.5 (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Evidence? --John (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I saw your question on ANI, and think this is so open. I declared the three Precious, did you know? Just read their statements in the leave notice and their user pages, I can't say any better what made them go. Sad to watch. I translated Invisible Rail ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, and it is one I have defended other users against as well. If you and I had a disagreement over say capitalisation, and I decided to leave the project as a result, that doesn't necessarily mean you deserve to be punished. Before enacting sanctions we need to see diffs of misbehaviour, and we need multiple people to agree that it is is misbehaviour. On a collaborative project like ours it is inevitable that people leave sometimes, and a user's curse as they walk out of the door is not necessarily dispassionate evidence. If you want to change my mind, show me diffs of bad edits, or discussions where consensus has been reached. Not the angry words of someone who is leaving. --John (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(How come every time I check in to Wikipedia something like this is going on?)

I'm intentionally not mentioning the circumstances as the moment the "I" word is used it will limit what Gerda can say, but Gerda knows better than most just how bad things can get when a dispute over style preferences gets out of control, and that if this escalates it's unlikely to end well. Whether or not there's a problem is immaterial—it's not disputable that a reasonable number of well-established users from a wide variety of backgrounds (i.e., not just one editor rounding up their usual tag-team QAI-fashion) believe there to be a problem. FWIW I tend to agree with SMcCandlish over capitalization (when I wrote Aylesbury duck it never occurred to me to capitalize the D), but to deny there are people who disagree is to be wilfully blind. Realistically, the only ways this can end are:

1. A decision is made to make the MOS enforceable and undisputable. This would be such a radical policy change I don't see how an outright schism could be avoided. (Think how much trouble arose from trying to get a consistent policy on how to summarize information at the top of an article, and article titles are a lot more emotive a topic than colored boxes.);
2. The MOS is depricated to "suggestion" status and things are determined page-by-page or by local consensus. This would lead to chaos as people squabbled over which local consensus applied to each page;
3. It festers until it ultimately ends up at Arbcom, where lots of people will waste lots of time talking and then NYB & Co will slap either indefblocks or topic bans on the two noisiest people from each side;
4. The people involved in the most controversial activity cool down and realize that if this genuinely is a problem, other people will fix it.

(4) is the only alternative which will end well, which means it's the one least likely to happen. – iridescent 2 10:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicely put. I vote for (4) and will do my utmost to ensure that happens, inasmuch as that is in my power. --John (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John... you're normally a very even-handed person on things. But getting on Jim's case while letting comments like "As noted below, the complainant here is conflating wildly different kinds of page moves, just because they inolve animals and he's taken an intensely censorious, punitive dislike to me" stand without any sort of admonishment ... seems less than even-handed to me. If Jim needs to provide diffs of folks leaving the project over something... surely it's even more important that someone be asked to provide diffs for something like the statement above? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remind me, which editor is being threatened with a community restriction here? Higher standards apply in these cases. Everybody is entitled to an occasional lapse, but I am averse to lynchings, mob justice, and summary trials. --John (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John. Really? If that comment was isolated ... it'd be one thing. Read the discussions on the bird capitalization issue. I no longer want to even give my input on MOS issues because it's like being bullied and hounded ... one gives ones opinion and then is subjected to endless replies that hector you over and over again. It's not just one editor - but it's quite common at the MOS pages. It's very ... bullying ... to be told by editors involved with the MOS that my specialist knowledge of how things are styled in a subject area is subject to some "specialist falacy" .... but when the MOS needs enforcing ... those same editors turn to specialized sources to buttress their arguments about the MOS. And that's just what I've been subjected to the few times I've stepped into the MOS and tried to take part. If small areas such as BIRDS can't enforce their own little specialized consensus - the MOS pages shouldn't expect to be exempt from that same "small consensus" decisions. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly sorry if you have ever felt bullied or hounded. There's always been a tension between those who wish for localised usage and those who wish to have more commonality across subjects. I expect there always will be. If there are user conduct areas on any side, certainly these need to be addressed. I just hate to see half a dozen folk lining up to castigate a well-intentioned editor. There are better ways to deal with misbehaviour. I did notice that comment you highlighted, and it raised my eyebrows. If there is more of a pattern I would like to see it. --John (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Here from the 9th. And the hectoring, must have the last (and longest) word issue is very hard to quantify with diffs. But it's pretty evident if you look at any of the dicussions. And please do check out the various discussions related to the Bird capitalization issue - they were pretty acrimonious - and unnecessarily heated (perhaps from both sides, but that's generally the tone of MOS discussions - it's like it's cage-fighting and they cannot possibly ever compromise or even see that the other "side" might have valid opinions. Classic battleground behavior, to me.) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much that is actionable in that diff. Things get heated sometimes. If there is anything else you want me to look at, please highlight it. --John (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Returning from rehearsal: I had my trouble with the believers in the holy MoS on A Boy was Born which they insisted had to be written as the MoS requires, not as the creator wanted it ("To my Father – A Boy was Born – Benjamin Britten – Op. 3"). Another example was Remember not, Lord, our offences. Those are just 2 articles, birds are several thousand. If something is not broken, don't touch it. - I have never provided a diff against a person and am not going to start it now. I suggested (with my bolding): DYK ... that Geistliche Chormusik, a collection of 29 motets by Heinrich Schütz (pictured) appeared in 1648, when the Thirty Years War ended, containing a "plea for peace"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John, I have to say that you asking for evidence above, and then removing said evidence from Natureguy1980's talk page is pretty outrageous. You may not agree with what he's said, but you certainly have no right to remove said evidence and then claim there is none! I'll tell you straight out here that I took a wikibreak specifically because of the editor in question's interactions with me (and others) on this and other issues; I won't name him, because I have no desire to be threatened with a ban, as you've done with others who've named him. But you need to understand that he's combative, he's belligerent, and he seems to feel the need to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with every little thing that flows from his fingertips. I understand he's passionate about his specialty area. I am too. I'm willing to give other editors the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but he makes absolutely no effort to deal collegially with others. And that inflames virtually every interaction he has with many, many others. I know he's been a good, prolific editor, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. But he needs to learn to play nice with other experts, or he becomes one of those who destroys the very thing he professes to love. MeegsC (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. What a lot of misconceptions in one post! Let's start with what constitutes evidence. Evidence would be diffs, links to discussions, or ideally an RfC(U). An anon editor editing someone's user page to say they do not like someone is not evidence, except of that anonymous user's unevidenced opinion. Now, it is time for you to read the difference between a block and a ban so you do not mix them up. I cannot ban anyone unilaterally, but I will block if anyone is habitually making unevidenced negative assertions about an editor, as that breaches WP:NPA. As a way forward I have already pointed you to WP:RFCU. I note that the specific matter has actually been resolved as I understand the editor in question has accepted a ban on making page moves, which is seemingly what some editors got upset about. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

John, Natureguy made the first statement himself; it was no "anonymous user". Here's the diff. And here's the diff where you reverted his comment, saying "that's not how we do things here". I understand completely the difference between bans and blocks; I'm sorry I got the terminology wrong, and appreciate your patient efforts to correct me. Please understand that I'm not upset about page moves. I'm upset about the way this editor treats fellow editors. And frustrated at the lack of any real attempt on the part of those of you "with power" to address that. But I'm learning that that's the way of Wikipedia now. "Sit down, shut up, and if you don't like it, go away." Nice. MeegsC (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Aw I see what you mean, sorry for any confusion. NG posted the comment, I removed it per WP:NPA, someone claiming to be a logged-out NG replaced it, and I removed it a second time on the same ground and counselled them not to do it again. I stand by what I said above but I want to add that I do see your hurt in all this. Your subjective experience is important to Wikipedia. Is there any sort of healing process that needs to happen before you, User:Natureguy1980, and User:SMcCandlish could all work together effectively? Finally, I am slightly hurt that my effort to stand up for our principles of treating each other kindly has come across as "Sit down, shut up, and if you don't like it, go away." Again, if there is some process that I can facilitate that will allow you all to let go of your anger with each other, I would be up for it. --John (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you imagine there may be some way a "healing process" could occur—I would be offended if that comment were addressed to me. Apparently some people do not see what is so obnoxious about the bludgeoning in recent discussions. As I have said elsewhere, there is no diff that shows anything sanctionable—it is the overall belligerence and domineering approach. The evidence is plainly observable in the bird titles discussion but it's not covered by CIVIL or any of the other pointy links. As you say, an RFC/U is the next step, as if people haven't had their fill already. All the diffless whining can be ignored, and content builders can go because they're only DIVAs anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd love to work through this so that all of us could "let go of our anger"—I tend to be a bit of a peacemaker IRL. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever get Natureguy1980 back. I know him IRL, and he's done with Wikipedia, as he feels the culture has become bullying and belittling. And I don't blame him. Read some of those comments in the huge, blazing wall of text regarding article titles—including some quite cutting ones from a banned sock puppet, as we now know. Personally, I gave up the will to live about 3 days in and just stopped responding. I'll put my head back down and work on content, which is what really interests me. But the time I spend here has been vastly reduced, and I'm not sure I see it going back up anytime soon. That many of us feel this way in the project I've been most involved with strikes me as quite sad. And so, so unnecessary. Anyway, thanks for your response; it's nice to know you're willing to make an effort on our behalf. MeegsC (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

John, while the process was on paper due and appropriate, there was a needless amount of acrimony that accompanied it. There are reams of text that go with it...will try to pcik out the key bits to enlighten. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There's comment from Natureguy1980, which may be relevant here, on my talk-page in the thread Another rodeo, I see. I've encouraged him to join this discussion. In my opinion, his question "how is an editor supposed to report bullying if he can't say it's happening?" merits a careful answer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw it. Is it one of these philosophical questions like the sound of one hand clapping? If it's an actual question, it's a very simple one. We have RfC(U). We have AN/I. We have over a thousand admins. If there was actual bullying, it should be easy to find actual diffs. In the absence of such, I am beginning to wonder if we are into WP:DIVA territory. Sometimes discussions go against you and you just have to be brave and move on. I am also wondering if prolonging this in the absence of any willingness to mend fences or move on, is actually helping anyone. I'll leave it open for a short while longer. --John (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this may the final straw for me. Here are the reasons I (at least, temporarily) stopped contributing: refusal to acknowledge a recurring problem with filibustering (i.e., "walls of text" again and again, obsessive usage of tags like WP:WHATEVER, WP:THIS, WP: THAT, and WP:CODEYOUDON'TUNDERSTAND. Most editors don't know what all those things mean, that they shouldn't have to. (To say nothing of "RfC(U)", "AN/I", and "diffs". They are used by this individual, in my estimation, mostly as a tactic to silence people with whom he disagrees. (I think Cas Liber is working on synthesizing this. Frankly, I don't have the time, and I shouldn't have to.) And now an admin is calling me names. Please explain to me how accusing one person of filibustering is worth of a block, but accusing another of being a diva is not. This is how it seems to work to me: an editor makes a genuine accusation, presents what he thinks is evidence, but the admin doesn't think it qualifies as evidence, so the editor is threatened for daring to bring it to light. That is the issue. (Natureguy1980) 98.223.105.116 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

PS--Thank you very much, Justlettersandnumbers, for taking my concern seriously. You are greatly appreciated. 98.223.105.116 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not see that this discussion was closed. My sincere apologies. Please do delete the comments added afterwards if it is warranted. 98.223.105.116 (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I am sorry I am unable to help you at this point. Please ask again in one month if you still need help. --John (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2014 (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.

For the birds?

In closing, you didn't talk to me, right? What I did was address the person directly, - received a very pleasant response. - "Every editor is a human being" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How sweet. Nicely said. --John (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And where is User:Geometry guy when we need him? --John (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't need Geometry guy if we simply live by the line. (I adopted it for my user page in 2012, and kept it, as a reminder to self.) He was reported missing and replied ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok John, for starters, scroll down to the "Support Option 2" comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_156#Bird_common_name_decapitalisation and look at the comments made to all the commenters - I'll let you come to your own conclusions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

As Echo will already have told you, I mentioned your name at ANI. (no reply needed to this) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

revert over at ANI

Hi,

I disagree with what you said. Per WP:NAC, if there is a clear consensus for something (as has happened here), then a non-admin can carry it out without prejudice against them being a non-admin. In this case, there was unanimous support for the ban, and as it required no special tools, per WP:NOTBURO, I fail to see why it was inappropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

See your talk. We are not a bureaucracy, but in this case, following the wording of policy makes sense. Let an uninvolved admin close it, please. --John (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking issue

Thanks for your contributions. I had pinged you on my talk page so that your name can be visible. As some pages on my watchlist had edits from you, concerning the flagging, overlinking, etc.

Some times, next one(happened two times now) would argue that you cannot remove the overlinking of geolocations, professions, words in daily use, etc. But it isn't it like you are allowed to remove those links whenever you see them? Many of these start and C class articles have 10 or more overlinks. Even a stub has 1-2. If one link has been removed, it has got effect on the page?

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Last change is from 26 December 2013 on Five Plays, and even after that the overlinking was apparent, check[44]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So what is the issue? --John (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Issue is that it has happened at least 3 times that I am challenged by other person for delinking the profession, geolocations or any word used in daily life. I find no rationale in such concerns honestly. What should be done at this situation? You possibly had too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

If people challenge you, you should refer them to WP:OVERLINK which recommends not making such links. --John (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see this way now. It was basically and technically wrong to make such link from start. Now if an editor had incorrectly written, it must be rectified. Thanks and will be back to you if there are any concern. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Barr & Stroud

I think your complaint that the addition of a reference for the architect being added, when looking at an article on a highly technical subject which has less than 5 total references, is misplaced and pedantic. ... I have added a ref,... A more CONSTRUCTIVE comment (and more usual on Wikipedia) is simply to ask for the reference or tag on the line... rather than unusefully delete as if the information was incorrect. If you were to apply this approach more broadly you would have to delete most of Wikipedia. Please be proportionate and consider the value of information before simply deleting. A contact pre-deletion saves us both effort--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the onus is really on you to provide a reference when you add things. I will try to help you. Can you give an ISBN and a page number for book references please? Could you also please avoid marking all your edits as minor? --John (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on the articles re Minor Edits. Which articles are you discussing? Do you have a problem with my new articles? I think they are well-researched, adequately referenced and of benefit to the Wikipedia reference--Stephencdickson (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I left you an example of the minor edits thing in my last message. The references we can come back to. --John (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rodent copy edit

Hello again, would you mind copy-editing rodent before it goes to GAN? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I will have a look when I get time. Say in the next week. --John (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Terrorists"

Check out Ernest Radcliffe Bond; as part of my IrlProj rating I came across some outrageous pov which I removed. I hope you've got my back on this one ;) Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. --John (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Blantyre Monument

Can you hook up the following draft for us. Last one mate, I promise. It's in my contributions. Cheers John. --Discolover18 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me have a look. --John (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality, thank you. --Discolover18 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight timeline

In relation to your edit [45], you might have overlooked the fact that at the talk page there is currently a discussion of whether the flight timeline is needed, without clear consensus. It would have been more constructive to participate in the discussion rather than to join the edit warring on one of the sides. Thank you for your consideration.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I see, you have commented in the meanwhile. Good.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started discussion about this in Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Since no one has done this yet: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I will try to take a look. Thanks for your openness to feedback. --John (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad manners (?)

Hello John! Perhaps You remember me and the Landskrona BoIS article and troubles (in April, I think it was). The article Stockholm has been "downgraded" for fairly good reasons by some other user, and currently isn't of "good reading" status. (Although improved after my initial edits, by some other editors) When I initially removed some stuff which I found un-encyclopedical, this started a discussion with Gavleson. I think he is less enlightened about Wikipedia leads than me. But when I've tried to explain, he has answered with more and more personal comments. Probably on the correct side of the line, but not really called for, in my opinion. The reason I trouble You with this now, is that Gavleson (in my mind atleast) has overstepped "this line" (again very uncalled for) by copy text from my user page (not the talk page), and draws untrue conclutions about me based on that. I've asked him to remove that part from the Talk:Stockholm page. If You do not think this was correct made by me, fair enough. Otherwise I would be greatful for administrational help. I'm not asking for any hard punishment, only (if You agree with me) to tell him to erase the talk-page part which he has copied from my personal page, and the conclutions he makes thereafter. (if he wants to rephrase his criticism, this is fine with me, but not base it on my page) I just think it's bad manners. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. --John (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This was very much appriciated, thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 flags again

I have undone your edit regarding the flags per this discussion: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 5#MOS:FLAG I am not sure if you saw it or not but if you wish to remove the flags please take it back to the talkpage, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting me know I suppose. There's a great essay at WP:DRNC which ably describes why what you have done is utterly idiotic. Why on earth did you do that? --John (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandal returned

Hi John,
just advising you that Marcos Casillas (talk · contribs) returned after you advised them on 7 July to provide references for their edits. As recently as 21 July they were adding obviously untrue statements to multiple articles. see here. They edited ~14 different pages, some multiple times. (You're probably aware of most of that as I see you reverted many of them) Anyway, I just fixed their last unreverted vandalism to Arrow Air Flight 1285 from 11 July, see here.

Obviously a vandalism only account. Suggest a block. Don't think I've ever suggested that before, but this guy gave me the s#£ts. :-( . --220 of ^Borg 13:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've blocked them 31 hours. I don't think it is simple vandalism; I feel like there is a constructive editor in there somewhere. Of course I am famous for being ridiculously lenient. If they come back and continue, please let me know again. --John (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do. I'm surprised they got away with it for so long though. They should have had a page full of more warnings. :-\ Only reason I found their edits was I saw an episode of AirCrash Investigations on TV and had a look at the relevant WP page.--220 of ^Borg 16:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

NLT Unblock

Hey John, I've placed an unblock on hold for the IP editor you blocked (details here). As I noted on AN/I, I'm inclined to support an unblock, provided it's clear that the editor understand how 'any' threat is problematic to working collaboratively. But I wanted your input first. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Protonk, I have unblocked. --John (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist etc

Many thanks John - I thought it best I stay out of the argument. I was under the impression that POV terms were not to be used here - I could have called them "freedom fighters". The point that the US and UK "regards them as terrorists" is exactly the problem on en:wiki. I liked your Mandela analogy; the US and UK regarded him as a "terrorist" too! Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, you are welcome. Yes, I can remember when Young Conservatives walked around with "Hang Mandela" badges. --John (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

New article

Hi John. If your bored can you hook up my Lamont Farm article. Its only small. Its in contribs. Cheers mucker.--Discolover18 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell, you've been busy! --John (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh I..........if you can mate :)--Discolover18 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again John for all your help and also Luksurl. Mind my article. Your a legend.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's great. I moved it into the mainspace. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant thanks. I'm sure that's me run out of things to do in Erskine. There's nothing left that's notable enough to write about. Thanks again.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Formakin

Hi John. I may need your help with this one. Not today though; about to finish work. Can you check out the talk page for this article. Formakin House I feel a lot of key details are wrong. Just the stuff to do with the name and category of listed building. I was a postie in this area for many years. The info is definetly wrong. I'll send u a message tomorrow about it. Thanks.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Took a quick look. That's interesting; I was a Christmas postie one year when I was a student in the '80s. Look forward to hearing from you tomorrow. --John (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Yeah, just a wee follow up from yesterday. That article is incorrectly named. I don't really know what it should be changed to, perhaps 'The Monkey House' or 'Formakin Estate' (I wouldn't know how to do it btw). Only reason am saying is that I might do a page for the actual manision house and its called Formakin House. That would conflict with this article. Btw I got another barnstar from Luksurl.--Discolover18 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Barnstar. I am not sure what to do about this. Let me think about it some more. --John (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah good idea. I'm off work for a few weeks, so I wont be on as much. I may do an article on the mansion house. When or if I do that. I'll ask your advice on the above article. Thanks for what you do. Speak soon.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy your break and I look forward to reading your new article when it is ready. --John (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Rodent CE

Almost there? LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was getting round to it. I took a quick look and it looks good. I should finish tonight or tomorrow at the latest. --John (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, for now. It's a nice article. --John (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Franzen

Sorry, I had meant to revert the anon who had deleted the "controversial" bit. Choor monster (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. --John (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Order of Merit of Ukraine

		Order of Merit of Ukraine
		I hereby induct you into the Order of Merit of Ukraine! Thanks for your work at getting the mess that was Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 into some sort of order.
		this WikiAward was given to John by RGloucester — ☎ on 23:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That's absolutely fantastic! Thank you, I can't remember the last time I enjoyed such an honour on Wikipedia. хорошо, as I believe they say. --John (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Good reading article

Hello again, John! I would like to have the Trial of Erich von Manstein article examined for "good reading" atleast, if possible. I've only made one tiny contibution (changing the word "lawyer" to "barrister, KC, and Labour MP"). I happened to read it during discussions and changes to the article Erich von Manstein, some weeks ago. I'm unaware of how to, or where, to make such proposals. I presume an administrator or similar needs to be involved (?). Boeing720 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No need for an admin to be involved, unless it's one who loves reading WW2 articles, like me. I will have a look in the next days. --John (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

TheAirplaneGuy

Hey mate, I've had a few heavy feelings about you after you got me blocked for 24 hours a few days back, due to the 3RR I never broke. As I tried to sort out a situation calmly you exploded like a balloon and let out your conceited approach to this. I couldn't get to he admins and I got pretty pissed. It isn't good to have a shoddy relationship with someone... we have to make up man TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh right. How do you mean you never broke 3RR? --John (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Err, I was doing the rvs in good faith... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a defence. BLP is, but good faith isn't. If it's taken being blocked to educate you to this, maybe it was hard-won but worth it. In my experience most edit-warriors are acting in good faith. You made something like 13 reverts. The limit is 3. On an article with Arbcom enforcement like this one I'd say 1 is a sensible limit. --John (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

About 12 of them were vandalism reverts TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No they weren't. At least three of them were reverts of my attempts to enact consensus and rewrite a section of the article as agreed in talk. Whether you agreed with them or not they were not vandalism, even though you falsely labelled one as such. Learn what is and isn't vandalism, and learn what is and isn't allowed with regard to reversions, and you will hopefully avoid being blocked or having heavy feelings. The first step in learning from this incident will be admitting you were out of line and that the block was (richly) deserved. --John (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Err, 'learning', are you serious? I had no idea about the stuff on the chat for a few of them and the others were vandal rvs TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, learning. Yes, I am serious. You negligently and carelessly made 13 reverts on an article which was on the Main Page at the time and was also under ArbCom sanctions, then you got "heavy feelings" about what happened. Clearly you have some learning to do. --John (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Piss off, not talking to you, I've been here long enough to know. Good night TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. If you are not talking to me it might be wise to avoid posting at my user talk page. --John (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru (again)

Hi John! I hope your summer has been great! Anyway, I am sorry to bother you with the same topic again, but can you please take a quick look into this[46]? Just a 10 seconds look and you'll see what I am talking about.

I think this is getting rather absurd. QuackGuru is attacking against me on an administrator Talk Page (Kww) again. I counted that this time he presented 26 diffs, the oldest ones dating back to March. I don't know if this falls under any specific Wikipedia policy, but it seems to me that QuackGuru is trying to get rid of me by any means necessary.

As far as I am concerned, he got upset about one single revert that I made at Chiropractic when QuackGuru removed sourced material. As a result, he gave me a warning on "edit arring" at my Talk Page[47]. Everybody else seems to be engaging in the discussion[48] at the article Talk Page, and that's where I also have presented the sourced material that QuackGuru removed.

This July alone I have made over 190 edits on Wikipedia. Only two of those haven taken place at Chiropractic, yet QuackGuru is immediately attacking against me on Kww's Talk Page, suggesting a WP:AE case. I don't think QuackGuru's behaviour is really tolerable. Reading the post that he made on Kww's Talk Page[49], I also can't help wondering if QuackGuru is fit for editing these very few articles (Chiropractic, Acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine) where he seems to be running into problems all the time.

I hope you have the time to take a look John. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge receipt of this. I will take a look. --John (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John! Do you think this might be wikihounding or harrasment? I read from WP:HOUND that: "Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor." Of course, we have to bear in mind that QuackGuru is sanctioned to consult an administrator first before filing any case.

WP:HARASS says: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. This will be a complicated one so you will need to be patient with me. --John (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on AN/I? Jayaguru-Shishya's edits haven't exactly been the most constructive. The number of shenanigans on alt-med articles is quite trying. Jim1138 (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A few points on this. First, the purpose of having QG post on my page is so that I can act as a filter. I do so: very few of QG's complaints make it past me. Second, a quick scan of J-S's edits show that his description is a bit misleading: he's been quite active on the talk pages of both chiropractic and acupuncture, two places where he and QG overlap. Third, while QG is far from the model Wikipedia editor that I would like to encourage, J-S falls equally short of the mark. QG tends towards hyperactivity in favor of trying to get unreliable material removed, while J-S seems to simply believe that by repeatedly feigning incomprehension he can ultimately prevail and get that same material retained. It's a tactic that is unfortunately effective: QG makes a point, J-S pretends not to understand, QG makes it over again, J-S pretends not to understand, QG ultimately goes frantic, all while J-S hasn't overtly done anything actionable. I'd hate to see J-S rewarded for passive aggression.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I do not sign your comments about any "tactics" or "passive aggressiveness". If there is some specific case, I hope you can address it so we can discuss it separately. Otherwise we might be getting off-topic here.

Anyway, even if Kww didn't allow QuackGuru to file a case, it doesn't change the fact that QuackGuru is continuously attacking other users. I would also like to emphasize that every time QuackGuru makes complaint about a user at administrator's Talk Page, the user is at risk to be sanctioned. For example here[50] QuackGuru asked a permission to file a WP:AE report against Middle8. As a result, Kww gave a warning on Middle8's Talk Page that the next time he will be blocked from editing[51][52].

I don't think that the sanction imposed upon QuackGuru last time was meant to give him some sort of "immunity" under which he is free to attack other users at Kww's Talk Page. Any other user would probably get sanctioned for that. It doesn't seem like a healthy situation if QuackGuru always has a positive "expected value" when he makes a complaint against other user: "whether the user gets sanctioned or then nothing happens". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read the comment above signed "Brangifer (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2014" yet? I have not examined the situation mentioned in this section, but a level playing field is not the purpose of Wikipedia—it is obvious to everyone that QG is a pain in the neck to altmed advocates, but so long as it is done within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, QG is likely to receive barnstars for defending the encyclopedia against FRINGE nonsense. If someone has only one controversial area on their watchlist they might get a misleading picture—it's after viewing the wide range of nonsense that is enthusiastically added to Wikipedia each week that it becomes obvious that people like QG are essential. Take cold fusion—if its advocates had their way, that article would leave readers with the impression that free energy will be available next week due to its wondrous discoveries that overthrow mainstream science. Have you got a spare million dollars? If so, you might like to invest in BlackLight Power—you would like to invest in that company if you read a version of the article favored by its advocates. Have you ever wondered if Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare? You would be certain that he didn't if the advocates of Oxford (and Bacon and fifty others) wrote the article. Did you see my reply to you at NPOVN? It read "If sticking a pencil in your ear ameliorated a certain condition, and if reliable sources verified that, then most people with the condition would be told to stick a pencil in their ear—it would be mainstream and not alt-med." Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I think you are getting off-topic here. The issue here is QuackGuru's attacks, not any "fringe nonsense" that you are hard trying to make this into. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What's different about the topics you favor and the topics I mentioned? What attacks has QG made? I looked at the links in the OP above and no attack stands out there. Please be precise because making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Having examined this I find I have some sympathy with Kww's post of 23:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC), apart from the last sentence. The one I haven't looked at yet is the warning to Middle8. What was that about? --John (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of sorry

Hello again John. Although I earlier had made entries at the talk page of the Trial of Erich von Manstein article, I never realised that it already had been reviewed once before. Which possibly have caused You unnessary problems (?). I should have known this, before asking You. To my defence I can only say that this was the first time I have made any such request. However it still seem to me, to be "good reading". I've seen articles with the same status that is of lower level. For instance articles where a little bit too much is written in the lead, including references. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've got the impression that an optimal lead mainly should be a brief part that descibes what's written in the main article. And references hence should be given outside the lead. Anyhow I hope that I havn't put You in any kind of unwanted situation, ever so little. Best regards Boeing720 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. It's been a pleasure to read this article, and there are minor things I've been able to tweak. --John (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Hi John

At ANI, you wrote at 12:16, 27 July 2014: "Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork".

Please can you clarify whether you stand by that comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Are you still upset that your block was overturned? --John (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am asking because I want to know whether that comment genuinely reflects your beliefs about the state of civility and gender balance on Wikipedia.

It's not a difficult or leading question. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting you come here to ask this question. That's a courtesy you did not extend to Eric before blocking him. You used to be someone I quite respected, you know. What are your views on civility and gender balance? What do you think the community should do with unevidenced assertions of mistreatment? Do you think that you have advanced the level of discourse on the project with your block? --John (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

John, it was a very simple question, which you evidently won't answer. That's your call.

I have given you a perfectly reasonable chance to revise or disown your comment, and you haven't taken it.

So I will be direct. If any demographic of editors finds that Wikipedia is a hostile place, then we have an obligation to reduce systemic bias by reviewing policies and practices to see if the problem can be resolved. As I am sure you know, there are several studies showing that Wikipedia editors are about 90% male, and the civility problem has been repeatedly identified as a factor both in studies and by the WMF's former director Sue Gardner.

An admin who takes the view that people can leave if find they civility policy inadequately upheld is rejecting one of the terms of use of the site. An admin who takes the view that people can leave if they don't like a 9-to-1 gender imbalance is actively endorsing sexism.

So I conclude that you are unfit to be an admin. I will reflect and take advice on how best to act on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will certainly take your unevidenced ideas with all the seriousness they deserve. I likewise note that you declined to answer my questions, which were likewise very simple. Here's another for you to ponder on. Only you know the answer to it. What was your emotional state when you blocked Eric without a warning? Did you exult? Did you rub your hands together at the drama you must have known you had created? You should have considered before you acted whether you were involved. Did you do so? If we are talking about fitness to be an admin, I am far more comfortable with my position than with yours. This conversation is now closed to you, as is this talk page. I shall be happy to talk to you at another place and another time about your sexism concerns. In the meantime try to ensure that you are part of the solution and not part of the problem you claim to be concerned about. Good day. --John (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• In the meantime I welcome comments from anyone who has not yet given up on any vestige of civilised behaviour. Was my comment out of line? Is civility best enforced by example, or by drawing up a list of naughty words which we may not use? Is there genuinely a problem with any woman editor feeling discriminated against? Anyone who can show me diffs to support unfair treatment can expect admin action from me. Unevidenced opinion though, is just that. --John (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been vaguely following this recent hubbub. Your comment comes across a bit as "put up or shut up," even though I'm not sure it was intended as such, per se. Yes, anyone has the freedom to fork, but it's a bit of a logical fallacy to suggest that the answer to a particular (alleged) problem, such as unfair treatment of female editors, be dealt with using the most extreme option. Forking is no small matter and we—everyone here—should try to appropriately respond to good-faith complaints and criticisms. This doesn't mean that every complaint or criticism is valid, of course, but responding with "well then just leave" somewhat dramatically misses the point. We want to be welcoming to nearly anyone who's acting in good faith and if respected users are saying that we're failing in this effort (i.e., respected users are saying that female editors often feel disenfranchised or similar), we should listen and try to understand why these users feel this way.

    As for specific examples and evidence, I agree that having these would be helpful, but it's tricky. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Not just helpful, essential if the case is to be made. Which it patently hasn't been. Eric Corbett 21:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    My comment (which wasn't at AN/I but ok) was in response to what came across as a vague wave by a user who held there was sexism here but who wasn't able or willing to substantiate it. My opinion of such unsubstantiated complaints is and has always been to put up or shut up. Real evidence of prejudice or misbehaviour is one thing; a vague feeling of being hard done to is not actionable. Such was the context of my comment. I find the people who are making false claims about what Eric said, or who wish to read misogyny into my statement far more offensive than those who call other people rude names. To lie, to knowingly misrepresent what someone has said, loses your credibility and damages your cause, whatever gender you are (or say you are: Furthermore, how would a Wikipedia misogynist even know that he was dealing with a female, since most contributors are anonymous? Or are misogynists so clever that they can spot female prose without identification?) I welcome anybody who has a clue and who is able to write, whatever gender they identify as. I really don't feel it is important in an on-line medium. --John (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

    Hi. I suppose that parenthetical was addressed to BrownHairedGirl. I'm certainly cognizant of the fact that WT:AN was the forum (which is rather bizarre, to be honest) instead of WP:AN or WP:AN/I or somewhere else more typical.

    What you're essentially saying here, as I understand it, is that if there's a problem, then citations are needed. Being a fellow Wikipedian, I don't disagree with this sentiment. I think there is likely substantial common agreement between my views and yours and between yours and BrownHairedGirl's. My post in this thread also wasn't intended to be an endorsement of BrownHairedGirl's recent actions. She seems to have gone on the warpath and I don't believe it will be effective. Some users are interested in institutional change here, which requires a lot of time and a lot of patience.

    That said, several female editors have written about what they feel is a hostile culture here (cf. Special:Permalink/619306757#Why not ask the women?, Special:Permalink/619303870#Equality, etc.). While you or I may not fully agree with the criticisms and complaints being levied, taking a "love it or leave it" approach isn't healthy or warranted, in my opinion.

    There has been specific evidence put forth that there is a problem, but there's an underlying notion that if only a few good men were provided on-wiki diffs pointing out these troublemakers, it'd be taken care of. This notion is kind of insane and completely short-sighted. Again, shifting the culture is a glacial process that requires a lot of time, effort, and energy. But I think the underlying problems are real, if not probably a bit overblown. I personally don't think politicizing the issue, as some have done using the phrase gender gap, is really helping matters, but that's likely a discussion for a different day. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

    I agree with everything you say, MZMcBride and I appreciate your calmness and sanity. On reflection if I was to change my quote I would change it to: "Anyone who has an unevidenced grievance and wishes to forum-shop their way to get what they want, has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork". --John (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Talk Page

I'm writing to you on your talk page because it didn't seem appropriate on the MH17 talk.

You said "In the absence of a strong consensus to include them we should leave them off." Isn't this an example of WP:DRNC, as well as WP:BOLD. I'm an old hand but, if I was a newbie, you might have scared me off. I try to include as much as possible of other people's contributions, if necessary, moving the text downward to a less-read section or assigning it to a sub-article.

I have never seen a discussion about adding items to a See Also list (including Lists of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners and List of airliner shootdown incidents). I say, in the absence of a strong consensus to exclude whatever, we should leave them in. How does it hurt to mention related articles again, in a place where you are not interfering with the flow of the main article? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I think the problem is twofold. The first problem is that many plane articles use See also sections in a way that breaches WP:SEEALSO, and this has never been resolved. The other is that in this particular article, we have suffered a lot of problems from people trying to push particular points of view in pursuance of a nationalist agenda. In my view, while the official cause is still under investigation, the article should err on the side of being short rather than being all-inclusive. We all have to accept that the article will look a lot different in a year or two, and so it isn't worth trying to make it include everything at this early stage. --John (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry project discussion

Hi John, I would appreciate if you could have a look at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Hydride compound article names. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at your proposal. What is the benefit of this proposal? --John (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll summarise what I've explained there. There are two ideas being covered, the first is to direct readers, who are novices in chemistry, to the correct compound, for which they only know the stoichiometry or the component elements; the second is to inform the novice reader that there exist related compounds with the same name as what they might be using to search for (disambiguation). It is thus for practical reasons. On reconsideration, I favour the compromised proposal over the original. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Is there evidence that readers find the current arrangement confusing? John (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is some. A while ago, an editor confused cadmium dihydride, which is named simply Cadmium hydride for cadmium monohydride, and caused an incident. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Cadmium hydride was, mistakenly, for a long time about CdH/Cd2H2, not about CdH2 where it was supposed to be on (a misreading of the references, I think). You, Plasmic Physics were editing it in that state (and you then likely were evenly confused as all other editors working on it), until later it was updated to be about CdH2. I can agree that this instance is maybe a confusing one, but that is not the same as most of the renamings you suggest on the Chemistry WikiProject - Calcium hydride almost exclusively points to CaH2, no-one will call that material 'Calcium two hydride' or 'Calcium dihydride'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Note, that since Cadmium hydrides are relatively rare and unstable, and more of an academic interest, I could see that this article is actually about all possible hydrides, not about one specific. The situation seems similar as the similarly relatively unstable Thallium hydrides in the 'Thallium hydride' article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• I get it. Do more metals have one hydride or more than one hydrides? --John (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

All metals have more than one hydride, although, each metal has a most stable/common hydride. The proposal has the intent of being proactive, rather than reactive with respect to disambiguating in the most natural way, emphasising the 'natural disambiguation' policy at WP:AT. The chosen names are legitimate, and as minimally contrived as possible. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As Plasmic Physics says, most metals (not all) have multiple possibilities, but for quite some, only one is the by far most 'normal' one. E.g. CaH2 is the regular hydride, which everyone addresses as 'Calcium hydride' (not 'Calcium two hydride', following the more correct 'Calcium(II) hydride'-name). Sodium hydride and Potassium hydride is the same (where it is near silly to add the '(I)' - other oxidation states than 0 and +1 are excessively rare for those elements). CaH, 'Calcium(I) hydride' exists, but that is an academic rarity (I even doubt if it should get a Wikipedia article). Then you have the metals which have 2 or more 'most abundant' oxidation states (I think to most, Fe(II) and Fe(III) will be the most known one with 2 very stable oxidation states, elements like Ti, V, Cr, Mn are extreme - every thinkable oxidation state is 'stable' enough and most oxidation states lead to compounds of general interest; Sc then again is with a far majority +3, with only minor academic interest for +1 and +2, and most chemists would not even really consider +1 and +2 for those elements), where there is a reasonable chance of confusion and where disambiguation is necessary. Then there are the cases where there are multiple hydrides known, but none of them of real significance (which I feel is the case for Thallium and likely for Cadmium) - all hydrides are just of academic interest, have not been made in significant accounts, and are not used as important reagents for further reactions. For those I would suggest that the article is about all of them, as I feel that the concept of 'the hydride of element X' is encyclopedic, even for the reasons why it is unstable, or to answer the question 'the elements left, right and up, down in the periodic table all have their hydrides, why are these so unstable'.

In short, there is no one hat that fits all cases. I strongly oppose having the article for 'Calcium(II) hydride' at that name, that one should be at 'Calcium hydride' (the name that everyone uses; same goes for diborane, technically the dimer of boron(III) hydride), for elements where 2 (or more) oxidation states lead to notable hydrides, the distinction should be made using the oxidation-state-indicator (following the naming 'element(II) hydride', 'element(III) hydride'), and for some the article 'element hydride' should be about all possible hydrides. No rules, no system, no natural disambiguation, just following the common names. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for explaining. I think I agree with Beetstra that there is no "one size fits all" solution. --John (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

An AfD, initiated by User:Plasmic Physics, of Mercury hydride was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Mercury_hydride. I have responded to that, with the strong suggestion, again, that User:Plasmic Physics leaves naming and nomenclature issues alone for a long time (at least a year or two), and the request that they withdraw the AfD. Please comment there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am insulted that you would so emphatically state that I misunderstand both AfD discussion and nomenclature, without offering an opportunity to defend myself. It completely undermines my credibility with regard to the topic. Please amend your comment in the AfD. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just calling it how I see it. Do you have evidence that you understand AfD and chemical nomenclature? --John (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

John, that is not how things work. In the outside world it is considered honourable for the accuser to provide evidence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a court, and I am not the only one to see it like this. AfD is not needed for the sort of proposal you have in mind, and your proposal is out of step with chemical nomenclature. Sorry if this comes across as harsh but you really should avoid this whole area for a while as you are wearing people's patience thin. --John (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I know that this is not a court, I am considering social norms. And WP:BLAR would seem to direct me to initiate an AfD. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Re topic ban

Hello John, maybe you remember me from a few weeks and month back, when i got topic banned for vaccine topics. I require now a clarification if this ban means either, QUOTE from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions = Topic ban The user is prohibited from editing either (1) making any edits in relation to a particular topic, (2) particular pages that are specified in the ban; and/or, (3) any page relating to a particular topic. Such a ban may include or exclude corresponding talk pages. QUOTE END As i understand im not restricted to talk pages. I'm asking because i recently edited the page ZMapp, which might include the topic of vaccines in the near future. Am i allowed to edit this page and related pages to the current Ebola outbreak? Since last year, there have been no incidents, involving me related to the topic in question. Thanks, for clarifying this for me. prokaryotes (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where was your topic ban discussed? Before I refresh my memory, I generally think it best not to even resemble someone who is probing around the edges of a ban. --John (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The thread is here.prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. If I were you I would stay well away from anything even tangentially related to vaccines. --John (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

When i appeal this ban, i just post to the ANI board? Thanks for the infos, John. prokaryotes (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. There or at WP:AN. If you've been editing productively and can articulate what you were doing wrong and how it will be different going forward, I am sure you will be fine. John (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Help

Morning John. How you getting on? I'm looking for a bit of advice. On my mobile phone wiki when I search nearby I can see all of my articles come up. However there is two articles that don't show up. They are Lamont Farm and Formakin House. I don't know if I have put the coordinates wrong on it in some way. Its annoying because all the rest work. Any chance you can take a look and see what I'm doing wrong.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Will look later today. Not much of an expert on geotagging though. --John (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I. However I done the rest ok. Its annoying. They all show up, just not they 2. Any help much appreciated. Cheers--Discolover18 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps asks Andy when he returns from the Wikimania honours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Meantime I believe I have corrected the former location, but I was unable to do so for the latter. --John (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. I just checked again, still no working. The coordinates show on the page but they don't link up to the 'nearby' bit on the mobile app. Very frustrating. Thanks for all your help again though. I'll maybe mess about with it later. Oh I.........can you hit my latest article up. It's in my contribs. It's only small, Normandy Hotel. Cheers John.........legend, thanks.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing, are you able to help with this? --John (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Discolover18: The coordinates look fine. Its possibly a caching issue, at our end (though I'd be surprised after so long. I've purged the pages nonetheless, which might help) or at your end; please see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response Andy. --John (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 August

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

• On the Opel Agila page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ReferenceBot, that was useful. --John (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Signature forgery

I note that you have signed my name, and that of another user here. The page history quite clearly shows that these edits were not mine. According to WP:Signature forgery, "Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden." Please remove this material.

Also, please indicate which of the statements you make in your posts refer to actual words of mine, and provide diffs. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

John I've started this [[53]] I originally didn't include you as you weren't actually a focus but I think this may have changed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgery .. that is quite an implication. The threads were wholesale copied, and the original remarks were written, and signed by both of you, Neotarf and Hell in a Bucket: diffs of the edits of you both creating that thread. At the very worst, it is badly communicated where the edits were originally made (although that is rather clear from the diff as well). Please retract that accusation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite embarrassed for you, Neotarf, that you would make such a crazy allegation. Read the big notice at the talk of my talk page; it's been there for a good many years now. If you post here, you accept the conditions of my talk page. One of them is that I prefer to keep a conversation together. If you are unable to cope with that, do not post here. I see you have asked for diffs, but also deleted the conversation we were having from your talk. Which would you like me to do; reinstate the conversation and provide diffs, or nothing at all? I can do either. --John (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest foregoing that and going to ANI John. It needs attention, you can also see more passive aggressive comments here [[54]]. Given the nature of the forum shopping, repeated attempts to modify discussions no longer ongoing and then bizarre accusations wit may be block time for Neotarf. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(watching, ec) You two, Dirk and John: I think it would be clearer if you notified the "you", because things get misunderstood, today especially, it seems, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

One week later, and I am going to assume that Neotarf has moved on from this particular can of worms. Probably wise. --John (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. I would also strongly recommend that you remove my name from your watchlist. —Neotarf (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Kubrick

Hi, I've begun rewriting and writing User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick. It's going to take time but you'll notice that the quote farm has already disappeared in the director section yet I'm told my edits to date are a negative thing by Light show!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Do not be discouraged if some do not appreciate your work, as I do. --John (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dr. Blofeld, Light show is negative about most things that others do. Cassianto^talk 17:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dieselrainbow.jpg

Hello John,

we´re a punk rock band from germany and we´d like to use part of your Dieselrainbow photography for the cover art of our first EP "Seifenblasen aus Benzin" (Bubbles of Gasoline). The Reason I´m contacting you is that although we are happy to give credit for your photography on the back of our record, we´re probably not able to give credit at other places. e.g. YouTube videos, flyer, merchandise and the like.

That means we may not be able to comply to the CC BY-SA 2.5 license all the time. Do you mind licensing the picture under CC BY 4.0 to us and we put your name on whatever we feel is possible/appropriate? By the way what name should we give credit to, just John? If you want to have a look at the cover or get to know our music, feel free to ask!

Greetings,

Alternativlos1312 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Email me, please. --John (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I would if i knew where to find your email address.. do you mind contacting me at --------- ? Alternativlos1312 (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Misc issues.....two of

Hi John

Me again...

(1) the archiving of my talk page; who can advise me/help me on that ...it's all going a bit pear-shaped.

(2) Check out Photo Wars at Ongar,Dublin - I'm not asking you to come down in favor of any photo but we clearly need guidance on when/if photos should be replaced. An editor added about 8 pics to a stubbish article and replaced the only pre-existing one - mine!

When I re-inserted my single snap, leaving his other seven intact, be reverted. Now, tbh, neither his snaps (some of them pure s*it, excuse the expression) nor my single one would win any prize in a primary school photo-contest.

But we need some rules here :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a wee look at this in the morning. First reaction is that you have behaved impeccably in the process of BRD. Talk page archiving I do manually and always have done. Any of my talk page watchers got any good advice? --John (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked the same thing recently on my talk page. I got this answer. Hopefully it helps.......I personally like using Cluebot the third. Another way is do it manually, usually through cut and paste. This page explains how it's done.--Discolover18 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you were simply ahead of your time...

I came across a few snippets this evening that reminded me of our recent chat.

From m:Requests for comment/Superprotect rights#Monopoly: "Jimbo at the State of the Wiki 2014 has essentially suggested that if you don't like with the way Wikipedia is handled right now, fork off!"

And from mailarchive:wikitech-l/2014-August/078129.html: "If you, the 'community' do not like what you have, you can fork. At Wikimania forking and leaving the community was very much discussed. Watch Jimbo's presentation for instance, he may be aghast that I quote him here but in his state of the Wiki he made it abundantly clear that it is your option to stay or go." --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It has always been the recommended response to time-wasters and attention seekers with no real or at least verifiable point, to tell them to fork off. I am glad Jimbo has kept up the tradition, although I am not sure in this case that I agree with him. --John (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Advice

Hello again ! The Landskrona BoIS article has suddenly become a hornet's nest on 13 August. I'm mainly asking for advice. Perhaps an other user is far better than me, in evaluating what's of encyclopedical value. But may I ask You which part of the lead section that You would find the better of

"The club is affiliated with Skånes Fotbollförbund and plays its matches at Landskrona IP.[1]"

"Their home is Landskrona IP which is located in the northern part of Landskrona town, close to the beech forest Karlslund. In 1978, the club attracted much attention at the season opening, by making a political manifestation in an attempt to support Swedish shipyard workers. Before kick-off at Nya Ullevi, in Gothenburg where three large shipyards existed, the team unfolded a banderole which simply stated "Save the shipyards".
This became a seldomly appriciated event also among the IFK Göteborg supporters."

In the latter case everything is sourcered in the main article. However here http://hd.se/sport/2009/10/16/bois-protest-blev-historisk/ is a source with a picture. Headline "BoIS protest blev historisk" can be translated to "(Landskrona) BoIS' protest become historical" and banderole text "Rädda varven" simply means "Save the Shipyards". There was also a large shipyard in Landskrona, by 1978. Answer would be much appriciated, though I know You're a busy man. Boeing720 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for User:Gryf in this dispute. Are there any other users who might have an opinion on how significant this protest was? Another possibility that strikes me is to move it out of the lead, where I don't think it belongs, and into a better place. --John (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First thanks for Your reply. Gryf has moved my paragraphs away from the lead. However at the time of the protest, the event got both televison and nation wide newspaper cover, and was days after also discussed from the aspect if politics and sport really should be put together. It has also a chapter of it's own in the clubs history book ("Ett fotbollslags historia, del 2, 1976-1990" or "A football club's history, part 2 1976-90") There are only two such books (fisrt covers 1915-75), but I believe a new history book will be published by Chistmas, as the club is 100 years old. Further recent political manifestations at football maches in Sweden, has brought "the shipyard manifestation" up again, as the first of it's kind. The protest was primarily ment to support the local Öresundsvarvet shipyard, which had 3.500 employees in a town with 30.000 inhabitants. But as there were three equally large shipyards in Gothenburg, the event became seldomly appreciated also by the away crowd. But perhaps less so in Stockholm. (Sweden is a very centralized nation, given its very long north to south extent and different conditions, atleast in my opinion)

Unfortunately we appear to be very few contributers to this article, as You perhaps have noted ? And I'm the oldest. I must presume. "The shipyard matter" is mentioned (including sources) in the last part of the 1970's. And a good lead ought to cover what's written in the article ? The club was also the first ever in Sweden to fire a manager in the middle of a season (also mentioned under 1970's incl sources). It was my intention to begin a "preparing" of the article for a future review. Of cource I realize we are a long way from that, at present time. I wanted to begin with the lead, by erase everything that's not covered furhter down, and then pick brief parts of the most interesting events from what's written further down. (And if possible avoid references in the lead, they must though of cource be given further down) But I asked for Your advice, and hence I will follow it. Thanks for Your time and advices Boeing720 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Qingzangrailwaymap.png

Could you add the new track to Xigaze?--Antemister (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I will see what I can do. --John (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• also seems to have formed a new alliance with Tebbit who stirs her up and talks a lot of nonsense [about the [Treaty]."<ref>Woodrow Wyatt, ''The Journals of Woodrow Wyatt. Volume Three'' (Pan, 2001),
• title=Ginny Dougary, '&#39;Norman Tebbit discusses Cameron, loss and multiculturalism'&#39;[[The Times |publisher=Ginnydougary.co.uk |date=29 September 2007 |accessdate=17 August 2014}}</ref><

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't know what happened there. I don't think it was anything I intentionally did but I have fixed it anyway, I think. --John (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | foundation = '''As DMA Design:'''<br />[[Dundee]], Scotland {{Start date|1988}})<ref name="DMA Design foundation" /><br />'''As Rockstar North:'''<br />[[Edinburgh]], Scotland ({{
• iv-overtakes-san-andreas-in-lifetime-sales |title=GTA IV Overtakes San Andreas in Lifetime Sales [Correction&#93; |publisher=Kotaku.com |date= |accessdate=30 October 2013}}</ref> Following in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks (for the advice, in retrospect)

Hello John. With a few days of retrospect, especially Your first sentence in Your advice have I found to be of personal help for myself. Perhaps not at once, but now for certain. And I hope it can remain in my heart. Sincerely, honnestly and without a single trace of irony - the world doesn't fall apart due to any possible contributions or changes. And for some reason, I would like to put it to You, that I've never been the kind of guy that beats someone that is lying down (a metaphor). I believe You to be a kind man. And once again thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I really appreciate it. I don't always get things right so I appreciate it when someone tells me I have got it right. --John (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I see you, John, right much ore often than I come here to say, that's true. How do you like this? Great to have you with us, protecting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ach, vielen dank! Du bist sehr großzügig und durchdacht. Es ist ein Privileg, mit Dir zu arbeiten. --John (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Danke, sehr gut gesagt. - Did you see the new motto on my user page? A friend composed a piece with a similar idea in 1991, DYK? Did you know that a year ago a worded a "motion" that believe would have worked better than what the arbs came up with? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

How come you've been deflaging templates? I don't see a reason in doing so. Seqqis (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION. --John (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my low knowledge of Wikipedia syntax. Hence I must use a full URL. Is this an example of too many icons ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gianluca_Zambrotta&direction=next&oldid=124575520

It's used as an example at WP:ICONDECORATION.Boeing720 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Basically we do not use flags or icons for decoration. --John (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've compared with the current version of this example, and I fully understand Your main statement. Just a thought though, perhaps some readers don't know that Juventus is an Italian club ? In that way there is some information in the icon, I think. On the other hand some readers might not know the colours of the Italisn flag either... But in almost every article about (association) football clubs, it seems to be standard in "player section" - I could of course mention the "player section" of Landskrona BoIS article again, but also for instance Liverpool FC (randomly chosen). I must stydy the WP:ICONDECORATION more thoroughly. However, if possible, any further enlightment of the border between informational and decorational icons, in light of the topics I've mentioned, would be very appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Like this statement from WP:ICONDECORATION "An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative." - at first seems clear enough, but it still doesn't improve my comprehension in the examples of Zambrotta vs Liverpool FC players section. Boeing720 (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng and edit warring. Thank you. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Kate Bush

I have changed the edit you made to the title of the "Impact on other musicians" section. Although you have made several edits, you have left in there quotes from musicians which do not state that she "influenced" their careers, merely that they like her work. Therefore I would consider your change to "influence" inappropriate since several of the quotes do state an influence but several do not. Rodericksilly (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I think less is more for stuff like that. I would rather you had cut more extraneous material and kept the heading. John (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, if we kept the heading "Influence" and the heading had any relevance to the information under it, most of it would be removed. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be OK with that. The danger is that we just have a collection of nice things people have said about her. John (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting...

In light of the current ANI - see Talk:Robert of Chichester from earlier in the year. Ealdgyth - Talk 07:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting. John (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Article Deletion Suggestion

Evening, around 18 months ago I forwarded an issue to your attention regarding content that needed removing which you dealt with swiftly. I have identified a vanity biogaraphy on WP; that in my opinion really shouldn't be here. The article is: Ryder Ripps. If you look into the history, it seems fairly obvious the page was created by the subject of the article. I suggested the article for deletion, but it was quickly removed by an IP with no history, with the note: "Removing notability concern. Ripps has more than enough established references including New York Times and PBS." I've created some bullet-points on the nature of the article and its subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryder_Ripps#Deletion

The IP the removed the article was from New York, where the subject lives.

--Squirelewis (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look on Tuesday. --John (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my Talk Page

Hi John! It seems QuackGuru is on a personal defamation campaign now. He attacked against me on my Talk Page[55] accusing me of "following him to other articles" (WP:HOUND). He has made the same accusation several times before[56][57][58][59], but has never provided any evidence even despite of my requests. Doesn't this fall under "personal attack"? WP:WIAPA goes about the description of personal attacks as follows: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

He also posted lengthy nine paragraphs where he is scrutinizing my edit history. The most interesting is that he is talking about me in 3rd person, so it's obvious that he didn't address it to me but made the post in defamation purposes, or as a "wall of shame" as WP:HUSH puts it.

WP:HUSH says the following about user space harassment:

User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

I am bringing this to your attention because you are already familiar with the editor and I trust your sense of judgement. I hope you have the time to take a look! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. --John (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I looked at this and can see two sides to it. Is User:QuackGuru reverting your edits, or is he just making allegations about you on user talk pages? QG, didn't you agree to mentorship at some point? What's going on? User:Drmies, as my junior colleague, what do you think about the matter? Had you seen that page before, Drmies? Isn't it funny that we are almost neck and neck? --John (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru has been making allegations about me on user talk pages. He has not presented any evidence for his allegations even despite of my requests. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Who was QG's mentor? --John (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if QuackGuru has or has had a mentor. In my understanding he has been acting out on his own. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• You passed me again, John? Don't you have better things to do than racking up useless edits? And what are we looking at precisely? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• I just looked at Acupuncture and I see problems all over the place, esp. with this edit. Where are these nine paragraphs? I can't read that section on User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya without a lot more coffee. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, sorry if I was a bit unclear. I was pertaining to QuackGuru's lengthy post on my Talk Page[60] (Background information) which clearly shows that QuackGuru wasn't addressing his post to me since he is talking about me in 3rd person. It's quite obvious that he is using my user Talk Page as a wall of shame as described in WP:HUSH. The edit you were pertaining has nothing to do with that, and the edit was made under the consensus achieved at the Acupuncture Talk Page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Maybe it was User:Kww. Kevin, didn't you offer to help QuackGuru? Forgive me if I was wrong in that recollection. If I was right, what do you think of this? --John (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm a filter, not so much a mentor. QG has agreed not to take things to notice boards without my agreement. I find that I approve about one request in four. As for these hounding/stalking complaints, I'll go have a little chat. It looks like he has gone a bit past the line again. I'd have to see very specific evidence from either editor on those accusations, because they tend to have a strong topic overlap: it would be hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.—Kww(talk) 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think it would be hard to prove any sort of following was going on in either direction given their overlapping areas of interest. Thanks for anything you can do. --John (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kww, thanks for having a word with QuackGuru. I hope he understands this time "the soft way", otherwise I have to resort to tougher means. The beginning doesn't seem too promising though: he merely archived[61] your post on his Talk Page without giving any sings of understanding, and now as he has returned to Talk:Acupuncture, he is interpreting the comment by DrMies[62] in such a way that I'd somewhat the problem here. Just by taking look at his post here at Acupunture (talk), it doesn't seem he has understood his actions.

I've been assuming good faith with QuackGuru, so I hope he will learn and change his behaviour now. I am not sure if "he got the message" though. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, QuackGuru's late post at Talk:Acupuncture:

I did discuss the problems... QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And what does that diff contain? Surprise surprise, the accusations originally made on my Talk Page. Now just brought to the article Talk Page under "I did discuss the problems". @John: and @Kww:, it is obvious that QuackGuru keeps going on with battleground mentality. As a fair compromise, I'd suggest an official administrative warning to him. I am optimistic that it will teach him a lesson. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

QG would not be a problem if acupuncture practitioners stopped trying to use Wikipedia to spread the good word. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading more carefully, WP:WIAPA clearly says that: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Like Kww already stated to QuackGuru at his Talk Page[63], his accusations do not have any solid foundation. That is already a clear warning, and if he keeps up the same behavior, more severe means must take place. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, that is true but unhelpful; we have a duty to allow all editors to edit as long as they abide by our rules. Dissent is not automatically disruption. --John (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I've also been subjected to this same treatment by User: QuackGuru. Since engaging with this editor, I have done nothing but be nice and civil towards QuackGuru and yet he has baited me to the point where I have gotten warnings for nothing, and now has directly and indirectly covered my talk page in slime, turning it into a wall of shame as well. I'm long on patience, but this user has tested me beyond my limits. LesVegas (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid as requested TFA, October 4

G'day John

I've listed metalloid as a current Today's Featured Article nomination, for 4 October, here. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have supported. Nice work. --John (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, all good for Oct 4, thank you. I just added a paragraph on the use of metalloids/their compounds as catalysts. Could you have a look see if this paragraph needs any pruning? Regards, 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I took a slight hack at it. --John (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good. Sandbh (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

kt

Good morning, John. I have long been interested in your talk page as a place where wise insights might sometimes be found, much as I have stalked the talk pages of other stalwarts such as RHaworth.

One appoach that I adopted was the use of the edit summary "kt" when removing useless hand-waving or otherwise unproductive messages. It is, after all, my talk page - or indeed yours, on the many occasions you have used that edit summary.

Being thus focused on the edit summary's purpose, I did not spend a huge amount of time investigating its meaning. I thought it was the first of these two;

1. "Keep together" - this is a discussion moved to my talk page from an article or policy or noticeboard talk page, it really has no place here, so take it back to that other place
2. "Keep talking" - [64] [65] a younger editor tells me this sarcastic riposte is what it means

Anyway, presumably it means different things to different people, but, having used it for so long based on your usage, I wanted to ask - what do you use it to mean?

thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's option 1; keep together. Per my talk page header, conversations started here continue here, and those started elsewhere stay there. Otherwise conversations become needlessly fragmented. --John (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Town vs City qustion. (Brittish English)

Hello John! I've assumed You live in the UK or Ireland possibly (Please foregive me if I'm wrong and correct me). Through other articles, I have found out very little about the difference [with the exception of Scotland]. My question is - When do You find it proper to use the terms "City" respectively "Town" in a foregin nation, like Sweden. I've got the impression that a "Town" has perhaps from around 15.000 to 50.000 inhabitants, while "City" is a better choice if the settlement has around 100.000 inhabitants or more. I'm only asking for Your opinion and as if the settlements would have been British instead , unless You have a more detailed knowledge of the matter and cares for sharing it.(Swedish language is lacking atleast one word here, I think. As the Swedish "stad" takes no concideration of size). If such matters are not the least interesting to You , then I appologize. Boeing720 (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help. According to our article on city, the term is used differently in different parts of the world. In the UK it is a status conferred on a settlement by the Queen. It is only awarded to settlements over about 100,000 population. Sometimes people also use an older definition, whereby a settlement with a cathedral was regarded as a city. This is falling out of use. In the United States there is no such rule and any settlement may call itself a city. Thus there are cities over there with half a dozen inhabitants. The distinction between village and town is less clear cut. I hope that helps. I live in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the way. --John (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Boeing720, we've got the exactly same thing with Finnish language. We've got two words: "kylä" for a village (swe. by) and "kaupunki" for the Swedish "stad". We don't really make any distinction between a town and a city in our vocabulary, but I think the limit for being called "a city" here in Finland is 10,000 inhabitants (LOL!). Everything under 10,000 is still considered "a village". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of You. Actually, Jayaguru-Shishya, in Sweden there was three "settlement sizes" with names "by" (village), "köping" (larger village) and "stad" (town or city), but since the 60's or 70's all settlements with 200+ inhabitants are referred to as "tätort". A word that never has been much used in common parlance though. The 'middle size' "köping" has not been used in speach as long as I can remember, but people still uses "by" and "stad". (interesting may be f.i. Båstad "Bå-stad", which suggests it would be a "stad", but it was a "köping"! 'on paper') Since this is in English, in my opinion, we ought to follow the British style, perhaps being a little more generous (for instance if the municipality exceeds 100.000 ?). But down to 10,000 feels too generous, and infact my home town Landskrona (with 30,000+ in the settlement and 40,000+ in its municipality) also feels too little to label as city, I think. But some other users do not agree. Hence my question. There really should be some WP-rule about it, I also think. By the way, the word cathedral ("katedral") exists in Swedish language, but is mainly used for non-Swedish large church-buildings. Is a cathedral a church where a Bishop resides, or is it related to size only ? I have not yet visited Scotland, I'm sad to admit, but we both lives at around the 55-56th latitude - however I guess You do not have much snow in the Scotish capital ? A very unpleasant type of precipitation, in my mind. (: No offence to Finland, further north in Sweden snow is apparently connected to positive feelings. However where I live, people cycles all year, golfers (like my dad) becomes sour and unpleasant to deal with and there isn't much else to do except waiting for those nice mild south-western Atlantic winds that makes things normal again. :) Boeing720 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't help seeing this while discussing recent disputes. Please note hat tätort is a term used for demographic purposes only and has no relevance as an official administrative term.

Today, Sweden has only counties (län) and municipalities (kommuner). Köping and stad were two classifications of Swedish municipalities before they were all standardized in c. 1970. A few municipalities actually retain the traditional stad ín their "official names" while their governing bodies are all standardized in Swedish. So it's Solna stad and Järfälla kommun, but both are governed by a kommunfullmäktige ("municipal council") and administrated by a kommunstyrelse ("municipal executive board").

Peter ^Isotalo 12:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Also couldn't help seeing the discussion. In German, we have two fractions, one is Project:Germany, saying that a city has to have a minimum of 100.000 inhabitants (in German: Großstadt), others saying that a city is a unit that governs itself independently, related to what is in German Stadtrechte, but here Town privileges. Discussion on the talk of Weimar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We have the exact same word in Swedish: storstad (stor = groß). Entirely unofficial and subjective, though. Sounds to me like Project Germany should try to fall back on official terminology...

Peter ^Isotalo 17:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Gage page

The Phineas Gage article is being hampered by EEng more and more it seems. He's reverted the map issue (a debatable and esoteric issue) and reverted my edits to make the images licensing and details accessible.[66] He has now started ref bombing the text into an unreadable state. I think the entire article should be rewritten from scratch in a sandbox or in the draft article space so that consensus can be made to outright replace the article. It may be the best way to resolve all the issues at this point, it is not WP:TNT, but it would be close enough to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that is how the article will get improved. It seems silly to have to work around a problematic editor to this extent. Let's see if we can get a topic ban, as that would be preferable. Failing that, ok. --John (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

EEng should be topic banned out of COI concerns. EEng self discloses on his user page that he is Lena and that means EEng (Lena) and Macmillan are working together. Should I take it back to COIN because EEng has had years of working directly with Macmillan, is referenced in numerous sources as Macmillan's co-author, aide, collaborator and such. The article is dominated by Macmillan and Lena citations, and is authored by EEng the dominate POV. It is entirely reasonable to believe that EEng is purposely controlling the article and adding to it because it is getting numerous citations and has been used as an outright soapbox in the past to further their research. WP:EXTERNALREL specifically notes academic-based COIs and I think I need to formulate this in a nice sentence if I do go to COIN. Any ideas? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Then there is a COI in his editing the page. That doesn't necessarily rule him out from editing it but it is a red flag. The draft idea is maybe a good one. I don't have much time at the moment to actually work on it but I can maybe help out a wee bit. --John (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Phineas_Gage - you might be tangentially involved in this. But I am pinging the others as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Thanks alot Chris for pinging me about this.</sarcasm> Since he edited my text on his talk page, I hadn't seen anything since. I don't have his talk page or Gage on my watchlist. I'm sure he has said nothing but love and high praise. I thought I'd leave a message here to say maybe people smarter than us (well, atleast me) could help. When it comes to academics, Drmies and DGG are the best ones around. Bgwhite (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that I have any special expertise. I know the general WP that one shouldn't cite one's own work without prior consensus on the talk p., and this probably also includes to any project on which one is a close co-worker. Looking at at them the same way as any other editor here, I think the many quotes to Macmillan's book are appropriate; the quotes of his website are not--I'd rather see it as an external reference. I also know the WP principle that our articles are meant to be accessible to a reader; while there is a place for non-bibliographic notes, this article seems to me as an ordinary reader to use them to extraordinary excess. But none of this has anything special to do with academe. The problem would be the same no matter what the subject, and also the same if the references were to non-academic literature. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: + John - The matter is seemingly simple at its core. EEng is editing a page that is dominated by citations to himself and his co-author. I was told to bring it back to WP:COIN because it persisted, but WP:EXTERNALREL does highlight this particular form of conflict of interest. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

But it is possible that they are un fact the leading modern sources for the subject. It is of course up to us to evaluate this, not for the author/coauthor to push for their inclusionl they can only suggest. I see from Worldcat, that the only extensive modern book devoted to Gage is Macmillan's An odd kind of fame 562pp. present in 822 libraries, published by MIT Press, an academic press with a particularly strong record in neuroscience. Fleischman's Phineas Gage, found in over 1600 libraries, is even more widely held, but it's only 86 pp. long and published by Houghton-Mifflen, a reputable trade publisher by not an academic publisher; Worldcat lists it as designed for high schools. Many other books discuss him, for example Damasio's Descartes' error', a very widely held book, present in 1750 libraries, but by a general trade publisher--and it devote only about 1/3 of the 312 pp. to him. Parker's bio of him is for children. Looking at Google Scholar, D'Aasio's article in Science is very widely cited (1090 times) and in a scientific journal of the highest prestige. Macmillan's book is cited 188 ties. I conclude from this that Macmillan's book is the most important secondary modern principal source, unless there are reliable review sources to be found that consider it inadequate. (This i s not a personal judgement: I have not read the book and in any case I am no authority in this subject to be making any such judgements based on content. But I can interpret citation data--which may lack nuances, but has the advantage of being entirely based upon objective quantifiable data. I regrat EE tried to introduce it hte way way it did, but it would appear its use as the major secondary source for the article is justified. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• @DGG: - EEng asserts that Fleischman is an elementary school/children's book and is a not a reliable source on that ground, despite the work being peer reviewed. Descartes' error has several issues that EEng will all be too happy to point out, but Macmillan's book does attack the other scholars as EEng has on the article. However, Macmillan's book is indeed the best (even if outdated) - but speculation should still be noted as such. Key is the fact that several great errors are present and those should be noted, but EEng will not have any of that. Case in point - On page 108 Macmillan states Gages date of death with a specific cited source. I updated the date on the article and EEng became irate because this is in fact false. No date exists and Macmillan squirreled this away on the website.[67] Also, a family genealogy with no sources is reprinted and taken to much effect and without proper context. Macmillan's ability to take liberty with the matter also results in another error of logic on the page. Filling in the "36 year" and blank columns as "0 Months and 0 Days" implying Gage died on his birthday. Macmillan's text is riddled with such things and EEng has muddied the matter such that the article is as poorly detailed as it is written. Given the example provided and the great error and liberty taken by Macmillan, all in the same page, is it fair to be concerned about the work and his colleague's dominance of the page? I believe so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

John - do you happen to have Macmillan's text on hand? If the decision to re-make the article gains support, I'd like to have another editor double check my work and highlight additional concerns I may miss. I've actually conducted some of my own groundbreaking research in the past months in a special field and I find that I work best with others. I'm keeping mum on the details of my research, but 1870s accounts are as flawed as modern writings of so-called journalists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not. I might be able to find it in a local library though. --John (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Seemingly, each time I check the Gage page - the more issues I find. I - and others - were likely aware of Gage's railroad experience. Hence why I pressed hard on Macmillan 2000 as being naked speculation about how he came to acquire such skill. It seems EEng is again making statements not backed by the text.[68] Williams merely notes the Hudson River railway (page 42, 2nd paragraph). And the "Unraveling the myth" does not mention Cortlandt Town either. EEng is either concealing the correction information with invalid references or simply knows nothing about that railroad. Either way, EEng has again unquestioningly put forth information with citations that he knowingly cited which does not contain said information. I'm not going to be dealing with EEng anymore - but I thought it best to let you know such issues continue to be inserted into the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Rough night

...last night with the boy. Man, for some sleep. Parenthood is highly overrated sometimes! Hope you all are doing well. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just saw your note at ANEW: thanks for that. These last few days have not been pleasant. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • All well here Drmies. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Hang in there, they say it gets easier, though I am not entirely convinced. --John (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • He's two... Drmies (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • My five year old still occasionally needs comfort in the middle of the night. But far less frequently than when she was two. My advice is to try to enjoy every day as it will not come again. Childhood is brief (though it does not always seem that way to the child or the parents) and you will miss it when it is gone. I'm not sure how much help you will find that but it is as close as I have found to good advice on the matter. Best, --John (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello John/Archive 2014! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Thank you for the invitation. I have added my name to the members' list. --John (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit

Hi John – as you may remember from earlier conversations, this is the oldest remaining FA not to have been TFA - promoted August 2004. You did a bit of work on it a couple of months ago - do you think it's usable in its current condition or is it closer to FAR territory? If it helps, the next open TFA date is about 30 days away so if you think it could scrape by, you (and others, I hope!) would have a month to work on it. (And if as TFA-day approached you were unhappy with the quality, I could easily swap it for something else.) Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 21:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a deal. Same payment as usual? Seriously, I will take a look. Thanks for asking. --John (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Marvellous. I'll leave the used notes in a brown envelope in the usual place. Bencherlite^Talk 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember seeing that on TV when I was a kid, or I suppose it could have been a later repeat. Scared me to death, almost as much as the scene in Salem's Lot in which the newly created vampire floats up to his brother's bedroom window and tap tap taps to be allowed in. Makes me shiver even to think of it now. Eric Corbett 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw it on TV too, and I also had an old Penguin edition of the script. Wonder where it is now. Eric, I was actually thinking of asking you to help. Would you be interested? I'll pass on 70% of Bencherlite's fee, to reflect the workshare we usually end up with on our joint projects. I haven't looked at this article again yet but if I recall correctly it might need a major nip and tuck to pass muster for TFA. What do you say? Please? --John (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but I need every Monday off. Eric Corbett 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's great news! You're making me feel guilty though because I had intended to join your go-slow, but when yesterday came around I forgot and made a few edits. What does that say about me? The good news is having revisited the article it isn't badly written. My concern was on sourcing; an awful lot of the article seems to be sourced to the DVD sleeve notes. What do you think? --John (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read it, I'll take a look tomorrow. Eric Corbett 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that the article has a tendency to drift off topic a little, especially when talking about the subsequent careers of the cast members – why is that relevant? Our biggest problem though I think is that imdb is being used a source, that just won't wash these days. Eric Corbett 14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If we trimmed out the poorly sourced parts, would there be enough left to be a viable TFA? --John (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to try it and see, because it's not a viable TFA at present. Eric Corbett 15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I suspect that there's some more material about QatP from the last ten years that needs a look, to see if it adds anything e.g. [69], [70], [71], [72], [73] (from the first two pages alone of a Google Books search). But you didn't sign up for a major rewrite, just a spit and polish to try and get it through TFA on a wing and prayer, and that's not going to work I think. Perhaps the answer is for either or both of you to leave some comments on the article's problems on the talk page as a prelude to a nomination at FAR, then I can get it off the "yet to appear at TFA" list. Just be grateful I didn't ask either of you to look at Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway, the second-oldest remaining FA yet to be TFA (March 2005!) Bencherlite^Talk 16:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel quite so pessimistic about it as you do Bencherlite. Let's see what can be done first. Eric Corbett 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be up for a rewrite, but maybe not in the timescale we are talking about. Will take these questions to article talk as per your suggestion. --John (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Wow, these were the days, eh? --John (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The world of FAC has certainly changed, that's for sure. Like you, I think we might struggle to get this up to current FA standards in the next three weeks or so, but I've seen it done before. Eric Corbett 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

When I said that the next open TFA date was in a month, I didn't mean that it had to run next month. It was a bit of an incentive/challenge - I just meant that if it was close to being acceptable then the next open date would leave a month for work to be done in it. However, if it's doable but in a long timescale, that's great too. If it's not really doable, or you'd rather spend your time on other things, then I completely understand. It's the most extreme example of an FA in limbo (not fit for TFA but no-one's taken it to FAR) and it would be nice to regularise the position, one way or t'other. Anyway, thanks to you both for taking a look. Bencherlite^Talk 18:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I still think we can save this from FAR John, but it's going to need quite a bit of work. My strategy so far has been to trim and tidy up what's already there, before looking at the larger overall picture of what ought to be there, and of course sourcing. I think it's starting to look tighter already, but it's early days yet. Eric Corbett 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching and what you are doing looks great. Should I start to look for sources? --John (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources for what's missing, certainly, but it might be a good idea to hang fire for now looking for sources to replace IMDB and the DVD notes until we're more sure of what it is of the current material that we want to keep. Eric Corbett 18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

... actually, I think we're about there now, so let's get looking for some good sources. I've done quite a bit of work on the Plot section, and as I think I'm just about done there now I'd be interested to hear what you think. I don't know about you, but I often don't fully understand what a film's about until I've read a good article on it. It never occurred to me until just a few hours ago, for instance, that the drill operator was himself telekinetically causing all those objects in that iconic scene in which he's running from the pit to swirl around him. Eric Corbett 20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. I will look tonight. --John (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the recent talk page comment I think we ought to prioritise replacing the IMDB citations. Eric Corbett 16:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's clear now that Pixley's viewing notes are just fine as a reliable source. The potential problem we have now though is to provide the relevant page numbers, since it's a reasonably sized booklet of 48 pages or so I believe. Eric Corbett 17:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll gladly bow to your expertise on the validity of this source. I'll probably comment further at article talk. It may not be tonight. --John (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

    No rush. I think in time we could probably turn this into a pretty decent FA, which to be honest it wasn't when we started. Eric Corbett 20:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, I meant to thank you for your great copyedits there. I learn a lot from watching your work. I reckon when it comes to prose style you're a follower of Eric Blair and Winston Churchill's admonition to plain speech? --John (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

    I do like to call a spade a fucking shovel, if that's what you mean. But I'm also a fan of trying to get the sense across using as few words as possible, kind of a Zen thing I suppose. Maybe I picked that up from reading James Joyce, or perhaps Hemingway? Basically I read too much as a kid. Eric Corbett 20:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

    I meant the latter. Yes, Joyce used to work for a week on a single word. --John (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I always find that The British film Institute is reliable enough for FA. Have you considered that? Cassianto^talk 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to take the piss? Eric Corbett 19:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Problematic administrator

Hello again. And sorry to bother You again. Administrator Bishonen is threathen me at my talk-page, mainly due to this

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22333_.C3.85rsboken.22.2C_assembled_by_a_Scanian_foundation_in_Sweden

and my changes 15th September in this Scania article. (about Scanian media mainly being owned and ruled by Stockholm - and a comparision with the same in Denmark) Even if he dislikes my edits, and even if he would be 100% correct and I 100% wrong (which I'm not, in my opinion), there is no call for him to declare me as a "Scanian separatist", and most certainly not to use that as a reason to expell me from English Wikipedia. (Scanian history differs though from Swedish until in sometime in the 19th Century).

It all started with User talk:Peter Isotalo wanted to ban all articles in "333 Årsboken" as a source, The 333 Year book, written in 1991, only assembled by "Foundation Scanian Future" , "SSF" 333 years after Treaty of Roskilde. Which to my knowledge never before questioned. I know not more about the SSF-foundation but what is stated at www.scania.org , but they have only assembled the book, I believe for instance Wilhelm Moberg to have been dead a long time before it was published. User talk:Peter Isotalo (who isn't an administrator) thinks I only should use sources which he approves of. There are no consensus at "Reliable sources". Bishonen and User talk:Peter Isotalo seem to think I'm having a political separatistic agenda, but I do indeed not have. I'm only interested in history. And I just think Scanian history oughn't to be forgotten. Further where there has been clear different historical oppinions between Scanians and other Swedes, I don't think such matters are forbidden to mention (if sourcered, of cource), like the outcomes of three referendums (of a total six). I've read all links Bishonen has provided, but cannot see any sevear breaking of rules. Neither WP:UNDUE (And I do understand "balance") cherrypicking and certainly not POV. (The owning and location of SVT, TV4, Marieberg, DR, TV2 (Denmark) and Jyllandsposten wasn't sourcered. But in my oppinion less sevear since they are articles and I had intended to improve the media part)

If You think I'm wrong, so may be it. But elsewise any possible help would be very much appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What would you like me to do? I took a quick look but I'm not sure what I can do to help you. --John (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I see I wrote a lot, sorry. Basically it all comes down to this issue

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22333_.C3.85rsboken.22.2C_assembled_by_a_Scanian_foundation_in_Sweden

Although no consensus has been found regarding this, since 1991 in Scanian homes fairly well spread book is declared "inappropriate" by User talk:Peter Isotalo alone. All its contence, different authors and disregarding how it's used as source. He want's a general ban! I've never come across anything like this. And by translate "Klågerups blodbad" to the correct "Klågeröd's Bloodbath" have I done something wrong ! There are other issues aswell, but it began with this - and article Scania. I've been bold in matters like the lead of Erich von Manstein (not to be confused with the trial of the same person) and French civilian casualties in Normandy Landings and administrator User talk: Diannaa. But I have never been threatened by an administrator. My brief experience of administrator Bishonen gives me the impression that he and User talk:Peter Isotalo wants to exclude me, "Last Warning" without any real reason, but I coming from Scania. (Details can always be discussed of couce) I'm not sure if You can do anything. But I have found You to be a very good administrator. I think (when time comes) perhaps that Bishonen's adminitrational status should be redrawn. I will have to manage without Wikipedia, it seems to become my fate. All the best Boeing720 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, John. I don't blame you for retreating from this; the subject is unfamiliar, complex, and to put it mildly, unlikely to be any too interesting to non-Swedes. (It's frankly not very interesting to me either — I only got involved from a sense that somebody had to, when Peter Isotalo brought it to my attention.) But more eyes would certainly be welcome. Chillum seems to be the only non-Swedish speaker so far who's prepared to weigh in (recently on Boeing720's talkpage). Bishonen | talk 13:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I promise I will take a more detailed look at this tomorrow. I'm sorry I haven't been as much help to Boeing720 as I could have been. --John (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And before I go over to User talk:Boeing720, let me firmly state that I see no reason why Bishonen's admin status should be withdrawn. This is not usually done unless a pattern of abuse can be demonstrated, usually via an ArbCom process. Admins are allowed to make mistakes from time to time, as are regular users. Having skimmed the discussions I see no evidence of this. I certainly don't always see eye-to-eye with Bishonen but as far as I can see she has behaved properly in this instance. --John (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks again, John ! I noticed Yesterday's first message from You, but the second I mistook for someone else's. Sorry. Since You cannot read Swedish (I must presume :) ) You obviously cannot evaluate the PDF-article. Although it contains disurbing illustrations (probablly due to the museum in 1991), but the authors wrote this text around a decade earlier. Anyway it's based on document from Swedish National Archive, regional, local and military archives down to university of Lund and courts, aswell as written history books back to the 1820's. And most of the primary sources are attached in its appendix. I'm attempting to follow Your advices. It was a pity I didn't read them before I saved my replies. Also the former article of Klågerup's bloodbath has been erased by someone. So it's obviously not quite only about me, I feel. I really would like Peter Isosalo to examin the PDF-file, but doubt he will. But Thanks again, John ! Boeing720 (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

New articles

Hi John. How you getting on?? I submitted an article ages ago. Is there some kind of hold up on articles waiting for review. I'm sure I done it about a month ago. If you can, can you check to see what the hold up is?? Cheers mate --Discolover18 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Discolover18. I will have a look and see what I can do. --John (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you've been busy! For an editor who said earlier in the year there was nothing left to do, you've now made 1600 edits! Can you give me a clue to what article? --John (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks for ths star. The article is Draft:Normandy Hotel. Its in my contributions. Cheers mate. --Discolover18 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've also been looking at 'articles requiring photos' then finding the photos on Wikimedia. Its been keeping us going. --Discolover18 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm on it. --John (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Do you like railways? --John (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, railways are ok. What you thinking?? --Discolover18 (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am always interested in rail articles and I wondered if there were some that needed developing near you. User:Discolover18, I feel you would be the man for the job. --John (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

For example, North Clyde Line could do with some work. --John (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, ill take a look. Its funny my aunt lives in an old railway station. I'm dying to do an article on it. Howvever its kind of mentioned here. Its called the Old Station House, Pinwherry. The article doesn't do it justice at all. It deserves its own page.--Discolover18 (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Something pleasant .. (I hope)...

John (and Eric - since I know you watch here) - I'm finally a bit more able to edit and am looking to bring William of Wrotham up to FA standards. I think I've gotten all the sourcing possible - now to get it polished into shape. He's really pretty fascinating - he could be said to have had a hand in founding the Royal Navy, or at least starting the foundations of the thing. All edits and polish and questions welcome... I'm sure there is context that is missing that may need adding in also. Greatly appreciate any help ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. --John (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand you to be a woman Ealdgyth, therefore I can't possibly help; my misogyny simply wouldn't allow it. Eric Corbett 16:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL! "Are there any women here?" --John (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Now, now.. I'm certainly not a lady ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a man, and I try to be a gentleman, but I admit it depends on the company. I will have a look at the article later tonight. I feel bad about the last call for help from Bencherlite that I let Eric do 99% of the work on. I have been a bit busy in real life recently but it is always a pleasure to work on one of your articles Ealdgyth. I particularly enjoyed, and learned a lot from working on, Middle Ages. Will there be loads of howevers? --John (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There always are, and probably loads of commas as well. Eric Corbett 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I had a wee hack at it. It's a super article. --John (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• I've continued to work on the prose. Please check the 100 ships in your source, and see if I've mangled the meaning. I hope not. --John (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hm... the source says "The chroniclers claimed that 400 ships were captured or destroyed." Rose doesn't mention a number that they believe. Prestwich's Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages p. 272 just says "In 1213 the navy proved its value when a substantial French fleet was destroyed at Damme, near Bruges.". Warren King John p. 204-205 says "three hundred French ships were cut adrift and a hundred more were rifled and set on fire". Turner King John p. 98-99 says "captured or destroyed most of the ships; then Philip had to set on fire his remaining ships to keep them from falling to the enemy". I'd vote for "large" or "substantial" rather than numbers - since the numbers seem to come from chroniclers and those numbers are always a bit suspect. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

    I thought that might be the case. The article originally stated "a number of" which I really don't like; zero, pi and negative nine are all perfectly respectable numbers. Could we say he destroyed a substantial naval force or something like that? --John (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

    • that'll work. Any sort of vague but close to it word choice will work. We don't need to go into great detail - this info is purely context ... William does not seem to have been involved with the fleet beyond helping assemble it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. --John (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ådalen shootings

Hello John ! I had a look in the history file of Ådalen shootings, I can see my suggestion to contact its contributers possibly was a bad advice due to the many contributers. Or did You contact anyone ? In the Swedish Encyclopedia "Nordisk Familjebok", third edition 1924-37, 20 volumes + 3 supplementary volumes 1937-39, which I hold a second printing of (1941-43). Only difference are (un-numbered pages with) portraits and some maps, the text is unchanged. This is the largest an to Ådalen shootings most closest of my four Swedish encyklopedias. (The "Å" letter is the third last in the Swedish alphabet), so in volume 20, printed in 1937, in an article of "Ådalen" there are around 30-35 rows (one of two column rows, so it would answer to 15-17 "common" rows) about this event. Do You think I should add references from this source, where appropriate ? I doubt I can save the entire article though and perhaps Peter Isosalo has better sources ? I will do as You suggest though. And I humbly thank You for all Your advices Boeing720 (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, encyclopaedias aren't the best sources for our encyclopaedia. See WP:SECONDARY. --John (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't surprised at all, I just brought it up since I have nothing better. And like You said, the current sources are extremely poor, and has been ever since 2007. Boeing720 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations at Arbcom

You may wish to see [[74]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh! Does any of that sound familiar to you? It certainly doesn't to me. Is User:Neotarf unaware of the convention that we use diffs to exemplify alleged misbehaviour here? --John (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No it's quite different from the reality of your interactions with both of us. I have requested the clerks remove or block Neotarf for unfounded accusations but either way I thought you should at least be aware Neotarf was dragging your name in the mud, my own name I helped with the pulling but you certainly did nothing wrong or unseemly. 67.148.180.130 (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This was Hell in a Bucket btw just at the airport lol. 67.148.180.130 (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing

Hey John, how's it going? I'm hoping to know if you are available to do copy editing in the near future for a FAC? URDNEXT (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I may well be. What is it? --John (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs (video game). It's currently being copyedited by Blackmane, but I'm afraid just one editor won't be enough to get the prose to FA quality. My fear is that Ian Rose comes to the FAC and opposes the nomination for its prose quality, so I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and see what you think needs to be improved. Is there anyway you could copyedit specifically "Downloadable content" and "Marketing and release"? These are the sections that most need help. Thanks for the help! URDNEXT (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I will have a proper look tomorrow. Late here. --John (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done for tonight. Still needs more I think. --John (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic job once again, John. Though I agree that the article still needs more work, I think you need a well derserved rest. You earned it. URDNEXT (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw that someone removed the copyediting banner from the top of the page. Did you guys finish work on the article? URDNEXT (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. We can copyedit it without a banner putting other editors off. --John (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Better off this way. Also, what do you think needs improvement in the article? URDNEXT (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It still needs a further polish. I will try to look later today. Could you please not "ping" me in article text? I am watching it anyway and if necessary a ping here would be better. --John (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright. URDNEXT (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's looking good. --John (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I added some extra information on the game's development, and it would be awesome if you could copy edit it. I'll put the references in once the edit is finished. Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs

Didn't mean to revert your edits on the Sleeping Dogs talk page, sorry! Must have been a mis-click. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. --John (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

GOCE copy-edit

Hi John; there's a copy-edit request for this article on the GOCE requests page. Blackmane (talk) had begun to copy-edit the article. Can you please let us know when you've finished adding to the article so the c/e can continue? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't adding to the article, I've been asked to help and have been working on it for a few days as well, but I am copy-editing it, which involves taking things out and reorganising them rather than adding them in. Do you have me mixed up with the nominator? I'm finished for tonight so User:Blackmane can have free rein. In fact I won't look at it again until Tue 30 September, how's that? Incidentally there seem to be a couple of referencing errors on the page now, not sure how that happened. See if you can take a look at it. I'm out for the moment. --John (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I hope Blackmane will find it useful. The main reason I asked is that there's little point Backmane copy-editing the text if it's going to be substatially altered soon afterwards. I've said the same to URDNEXT (talk), who requested the c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope so too. I saw your comments to URDNEXT and I echo them. --John (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, John. I've been trying to get a handle on it while trying to keep up with the extra commentary from the FAR. Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 46.19.85.30

Please can you block this IP address (you have blocked him already under a different IP 46.121.81.8) for making the same unsourced edit to the Sting page. Rodericksilly (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've warned them. --John (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid warnings and temporary blocks don't work with that guy. He's operating under different IP addresses and is determined to change the sales figures on that page. He'll be back. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we would need to semi-protect the article. Let me know if you think this is necessary. --John (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

He's back under yet another IP address. I've just reverted him again. I think semi-protection is a good idea. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected. --John (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

Hello John. Things have calmed down. I feel obligated - and happy to give You this perticulary Barnstar. (Now when I have learned how to, it's my third such award today and ever. I will not make an inflation of them though) The other were common ones, but this diplomacy one, I strongly feel You have earned. Please see it as a humble but huge appriciation of both diplomacy and wise advices. Boeing720 (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is really appreciated. --John (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Image size

Don't you think the current image size in gameplay is too small? It's kinda weird to me. Also, Grand Theft Auto V uses a gameplay image at a fairly big size, and it's an FA. What do you think about increasing the size a bit? URDNEXT (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's considered better to let logged-in users set their own thumbnail sizes, see WP:IMGSIZE. --John (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

But the current size is so small it resulted in a "hole" below it. URDNEXT (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a function of your monitor and screen resolution settings. If you hard-code it to look good on one particular set-up, it'll look rubbish on others. You can adjust your thumbnail settings and it will look better. I am going to walk away from this article for 24 hours or so. I've enjoyed working on it as much as I have, but it's difficult to copyedit it when you keep adding stuff. Why not ping me again here when you are finished and I can resume? Please don't add any more quotes or trivia about features of the game, as they will have to be highly condensed or removed to have a shot at FA. Cheers, --John (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm just gonna add one more sentence about the XP system, then I'll leave the article on your hands, without pinging you. URDNEXT (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. I won't be making any more edits to the article now until the copy editing is finished. URDNEXT (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I will try for one more pass later this evening. ---John (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, I have adjucted the image sizes in preferences and they look a lot better now. Thanks for the tip! URDNEXT (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ps.: Do you think the article is close to being FA now that all this progress has been made? URDNEXT (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In completeness, yes. In prose, it's closer than it was but I am afraid it still needs some work. I saw the referencing and close paraphrasing concerns and these would need to be addressed. It's getting there but it isn't there yet. --John (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Sounds good. URDNEXT (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

World Book Encyclopedia

Hi John! How are you? I was wondering if you can run an SPI on user Lurelearning? There are several odd co-incidents that I think might connect her to user AEMSWB. Please find a short summary below:

• 17:54, 13 August 2014‎ - User AEMSWB posts on Talk:World Book Encyclopedia. She introduces herself saying that she works for World Book Inc. and she makes several suggestions for the development of the article[75]. Talk:World Book Encyclopedia remains the only article she has ever edited[76].
• 17:27, 23 September 2014‎ - User AEMSWB deletes her post on the Talk Page that includes her suggestions that she has made in the role of an employee[77].
• 21:50, 23 September 2014‎ - A new user shows up at World Book Encyclopedia.[78] She has not edited any other article (except for World Book, Inc.)[79], and she immediately starts carrying out the agenda earlier suggested by AEMSWB. The account's very first edit was made at 17:57, 23 September 2014[80], only 30 minutes after AEMSWB removed her post.

I think this is at least worth of checking. Do you think that is possible? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, taking a look at Lurelearning's Talk Page, I think it might be best to assume good faith. Another user gave her a similar notification about using independent sources, where she replied: " I've requested edits on the World Book Encyclopedia page, but did not received any help so I need to try another route. Can you please help?"[81]. This matches with the requested edit done by AEMSWB[82]. I don't really understand why she had to pick up another username though...

Do you happen to know Cullen328? I am a regular (talk page stalker) there and I think he's an expert in advising newcomers with the use of reliable sources. :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, I will try to look at this later today. --John (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Lurelearning has freely admitted to being AEMSWB and asked for help and advice, which I will freely give. --John (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Keswick

Hello, John. Point taken about the simplified phonetic spelling in addition to the IPA, but if you have a swift look at the article talk page (early entries) you'll see some perplexity expressed by non-English readers, and I wonder if perhaps it would be helpful to leave the alternative rendition in. That apart, may we hope for your comments on the article in general at the FAC page? I hope so (it's my first geographical FAC effort and even with the experienced help of Dr Blofeld I am nervous) but quite understand if you are otherwise engaged. Best wishes – Tim riley talk 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, of course. I am working towards that. I think the article looks super. As regards the RESPELL template, I greatly dislike it and I recall the rule is it may not be used except on words one would find on a dictionary. Maybe I will restore it and see what other FAC reviewers think? I intend to finish a light copyedit then note my support. I am perplexed that there is no article for the local railway. --John (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Aha! --John (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Very pleased you're going to review. Tim riley talk 18:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviews keep taking ages

Hi John. How you getting on?? Can you have a look at this draft and if its good to go. Then can you hook it up for me. Reviews are taking ages. Cheers mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. I moved it to the mainspace. --John (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Can you do this one as well.--Discolover18 (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please delete the latest entries of User:Konveyor Belt/CSD log as they are all redirects to the now-deleted Wikipedia:List of banned editors. KonveyorBelt 22:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your request isn't clear to me. If you are requesting an edit, couldn't you just do it yourself? If it's an admin-only thing, let me know. --John (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Your deletion log of list of banned editors points to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users rather than Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). You might like to restore and re-delete the page so the relevant deletion discussion can be more easily found. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Thank you. --John (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done that. Thanks for noticing the mistake. --John (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John! I noticed it whilst deleting some redirects, which is what I think Konveyor Belt was trying to say in his post -- Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, both of you. --John (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for making the right decision on that discussion. That page was nothing but a weight around our collective necks and served no useful purpose (especially since it wasn't maintained very well). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Well done at the MfD for the List of banned users. No matter which way that went, someone was going to be unhappy. But the fact that you took the time to review the arguments and weigh their strengths and weaknesses and make a difficult choice shows you to be someone worthy of the mop and deserving of respect. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A well-deserved barnstar. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

agree, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970

I wanted to bring to your attention something that popped up on my Watchlist at WP:BLPN: you unblocked this editor (see here) with a 6 month topic ban on cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. They are now in a dispute at John Ashton (public health director) over this person's interactions on twitter with electronic cigarette activists. Given this editor's previous problems with BLPs in the area of e-cigs, I am concerned about their continued presence in this area, and wanted to alert you to their apparent topic ban violation as you were the unblocking admin. Yobol (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

John Ashton is a leftist academic, not an electronic cigarette. Just pointing that out in case you were confused.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Yobol for keeping me in the loop. FergusM1970, this edit is in my view a violation of your topic ban. Please self revert and we will say no more about it. Remember what I said about In respect of your restrictions, please don't be tempted to skirt the boundaries of 1RR or tobacco/ecigarettes. If you're in doubt, don't go there.? This is the sort of thing I meant. Just revert that one please and we can move on. --John (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Done!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It's absolutely fine in future if you want to run any planned edits by me if you are in doubt about whether it's a contravention. Your topic ban will expire soon, do you plan to go back to this area? --John (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that if I'm at all doubtful in future. As for returning to the area that obviously depends on the state of the article. It's definitely better, but still focused far too much on the claims of opponents rather than on the devices themselves.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. With that edit reverted the article now doesn't make any sense. It looks as if FPH reprimanded Ashton for commenting on the WHO report, rather than for abusing people. I'd suggest removing the reference to the WHO, which isn't actually relevant, and changing it to something like "On 6 September 2014 Ashton used inappropriate and offensive language to refer to members of the public on Twitter. Following this he apologized and took a voluntary leave of absence while the incident was investigated. On 26 September it was announced that he would be returning to work after appropriate steps had been taken." The FPH statement should be a sufficient reference. Would that be OK? It doesn't mention the dreaded e-cigs at all.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get into discussing the details of the article with you, but I suggest you post your suggestion on the talk page in this case. Please do not add anything else directly to the article regarding this matter, even if it does not directly mention e-cigs. --John (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed your ban included talk pages as well. Never mind. Please just be careful and nice when you post there. I will take a look later on and see if I can suggest a compromise. --John (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm being very good and not editing anything even remotely connected with my topic ban, but it's frustrating to take my punishment while QuackGuru, under the protection of Doc James, is blatantly POV pushing and editing disruptively. Just saying.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I am watching that user and the article. So far I think he is staying just the right side of the line. --John (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Then he's treading it VERY finely. I'm seeing a lot of IDHR, misrepresenting sources and on at least one occasion a creative "mistake" that just coincidentally doubled the number of choking deaths caused by children eating mislaid cartridges. I'm not even going into the fact that QG is just a meat puppet of Doc James, who will be along just as soon as QG's latest garbage spree finishes to reimpose his unique worldview on the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? --John (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's one. The talk page will highlight many more issues. Among other things he's claiming that FAQs are RS while refusing to accept peer-reviewed studies, repeatedly inserting POV wording and fighting to introduce the frankly bizarre "it's not really vapour" argument that some cranks have recently started using.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

He's now insisting that the WP:MEDRS rules on primary sources don't apply if the primary source is from CDC or WHO.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have asked them to stop doing that. --John (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know if you see anything else dodgy from this user or any other at that page. --John (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's at it again; since you warned him (I think - he's zapped his talk page again so I can't check the time) he added a whole new section drawn exclusively from the Grana review. Other editors are trying to fix it but he's accusing them of OR. The Grana review is being given massive weight despite having been severely criticised and being generally regarded as an outlier of dubious objectivity. As for his arguments about the CDC Notes From the Field being a secondary source, it's BS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

...and now he's saying "Claiming e-cigarettes produce vapour is original research". There is no way he's a good-faith editor.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

London Calling

Why cant I add a citation needed to London calling? It says "To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an un-cited claim" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitloop11 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take this one to Talk:The Clash. --John (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm in the right here. If I disagree a band is punk I can add the tag. I'm not denying they were punk. I'm just saying from London Calling onwards they were more than punk. Wanting to add verifiability is not a form of disruption. Also If you plan on blocking me I suggest you remember "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute"--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As I say, this is better discussed at article talk, and indeed it has been. I have no intention of blocking you, but if you continue to edit disruptively then it is likely that another admin will. --John (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine I'll bring it up on The Clash Talk Page.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks from HiLo48

You just closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks from HiLo48 with the remark "Content dispute disguised as a civility complaint." How exactly did the evidence I provided fail to meet the definition of repeated personal attacks?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's take an edit like this one. While it is perhaps suboptimal to have a discussion like this at article talk, in my view this falls way short of the sort of edit that would lead to a block. Quite a few of the diffs you posted were like this, showing the two of you bickering unproductively. Sadly, this happens a lot here. The best thing is to employ the principles of WP:DR. Sometimes I recommend walking away for a while and having a cup of tea or something. I am sorry you did not like my close but I stand by it, unless there are other more egregious examples you can show that you have not yet shown. --John (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

John, is there something else that can be done to resolve the issue at the article in question please? The number of people disagreeing with Gibson's view is continually growing, yet he won't change his opinion. He is now referring to what was effectively an inconclusive visit to the NPOV Noticeboard as proof that he is right. I personally don't want to raise this at another forum on Wikipedia because of all the shit that will inevitably be thrown at me. (I hope you noticed that at AN/I, precisely as I pedicted in my initial post. Will there ever be consequences for the shit throwers, especially when they are Admins?) How can the article be made and maintained as neutral now please?

And while I'm here. what does one do in a general sense when a query at the NPOV Noticebaord simply doesn't get enough attention before it gets archived? That was, to me, an obvious place to go on the matter in question, but it didn't help at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) John, The fact that you say things like "the two of you bickering unproductively", and appear to be suggesting that I am the one who should be "walking away for a while and having a cup of tea or something" illustrates why I think the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy is written the way it is. Whether uninvolved editors (like yourself, who come into discussions with the best of intentions) consciously mean to or not, they can't help taking in these claims that I'm being disruptive/rude/biased/etc. and factoring it into their take on the situation. This means there will be times when the subjects of such personal attacks, who may in fact be none of these things, risk having their efforts to improve the encyclopedia thwarted by those who are disruptive/rude/biased/etc. Restricting one's remarks to the edit and not the editor ensures this cannot happen, and is, I think, why such emphasis is given to repetition (not just severity) of personal attacks in the aforementioned policy. These completely unsubstantiated claims of HiLo48's that I am an AFL-hating, POV-pushing, disruptive, rude, confrontational, uncooperative editor (which are all by the way utterly untrue as my edit history shows, but who has time to check, right?) were (and still are) appearing an ever-increasing number of times in a remarkably large number of places. I was certain that if I followed the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy by ignoring the first ones, not responding in kind while patiently allowing him to continue, letting him know I disapproved of the personal attacks, providing a link to the policy, eventually asking him to stop, and then finding he didn't, I would no longer have to put up with it. This would not have to be achieved, as you say, by having him blocked. Couldn't he be forced to remove (or redact) the attacks? Couldn't he have at least been warned or reproached in some way(rather than emboldened) so that there could be a promise of no more in the future? I also thought there would be some kind of final warning approach that HiLo48, given his history of (and past blocks for) personal attacks, would be subject to. I couldn't help thinking too that surely the longer a user's record for personal attacks got, the wider the definition of what constitutes a personal attack by them would become. I admit I was a bit ambivalent about where to lodge my report, and maybe it wasn't formatted the right way, but having it described as a "content dispute disguised as a civility complaint" on top of what I'm already being told to endure really seems a bit much.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You have now reverted my change at the article from "poached" to "recruited", now very much in line with consensus there, arguing in your Edit summary that "poached" would be more succinct. That's absolutely ridiculous, and your continued edit warring and stubbornness there helps provide part of a response to your missive above. There many more, and in my view worse, ways to be uncivil than the use of naughty words. John, we really need outside help to resolve this please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• There are many behaviours which can disrupt the editing process. These include but are not limited to commenting on editors in inappropriate places, failing to assume good faith and edit-warring. While one is usually not expected to be perfect, and is allowed to get it wrong occasionally, repeating behaviour you have been asked to desist sometimes makes a block necessary. It looks like you have managed to reach a compromise in the article. Am I right? If so, please consider, both of you, how you could have achieved that result with less friction. If not, please indicate what kind of resolution you are looking for.--John (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing GSV has done has been acceptable to me so far. His most recent edit still seemed to want to say something negative about the recruitment of the players. User:Nick Thorne has now made an edit agreeing perfectly with the views of a considerable majority of editors who have commented on the article. Let's hope it stays that way. Nick Thorne wrote as his Edit summary "restore NPOV". That's all I have ever been seeking there. However, the issue still remains. This was all about one editor pushing a POV, one who seemingly doesn't even realise that he was doing so. Our processes have been particularly ineffective in dealing with the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Again, "both of you". If my belief that the source of friction lies 100% in HiLo48's behaviour is a mistaken one, it shouldn't be too hard for you to help me to understand that by providing some diffs that show me contributing to the problem. And no, there appears to be no compromise yet.

I was actually looking forward to a more detailed response to my previous post, but I suspect you've (probably unwittingly) allowed yourself to be distracted by HiLo48's interjections here (which, by the way, contain the rather serious accusation of edit-warring, without diffs). I think I'm now beginning to understand why interaction bans were invented.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help. Edits like this are problematic when made once. When made repeatedly, HiLo is right to speak of that as edit-warring. Again, I counsel both of you to knock it off and to learn from your mistakes here. --John (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I was actually trying to focus on my complaint about personal attacks and everything leading up to that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's impossible meaningfully to separate the issues in that way. Bad behaviour can incite and provoke bad behaviour in others. Don't edit-war, agree things in talk, keep article talk for talking about the article, assume good faith in your opponent, and be prepared to go for a cup of tea if things are getting heated. I am still talking to you both here. --John (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It feels as though I was talking to you, but you're just talking at me. You're obviously quite busy. Fair enough.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry to have given you (or HiLo) that impression. It can be hurtful when you fall out with someone on Wikipedia. My experience has shown me that it it less hurtful and you have fewer fallings-out if you follow that pattern: Don't edit-war, agree things in talk, keep article talk for talking about the article, assume good faith in your opponent, and be prepared to go for a cup of tea if things are getting heated. Maybe I have focused overmuch on the process and not enough on hurt feelings in responding. The best cure for hurt feelings is to walk away and to genuinely try to see the other person's point of view. I am not a Christian, but "Love your neighbour as your self" is great wisdom indeed. --John (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No apology (or speculation about hurt feelings) necessary. I understand it's time-consuming.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Port vs Harbour ?

Hello John ! If possible , could You explain if there is a difference between the words "port" and "harbour". (I'm only thinking about the sea and huge lakes, not "airport"). Any answer would be appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. A port is a place where passengers and cargo can be loaded on and off ships. A harbour is the physical facility within the port where ships can moor while loading and unloading. A port may have several harbours, or may be located within a natural harbour. Make sense? --John (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In Swedish we only have "hamn". Your answer makes sense, and thanks !Boeing720 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:I dream of horses

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:I dream of horses. Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your messages to ip not heeded.

Hi John; Yesterday i noticed that your corrections from Friday to the ip at "artificial intelligence" article were not heeded. Could you follow-up with that user and bring back the good version? Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. --John (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Morning John

Can you check this and hook it up if you can. Thanks.--Discolover18 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took me a while. --John (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How goes it?? Can you do this one as well. Cheers, lol.--Discolover18 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I will have a look. --John (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, nice work. --John (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for your help John. I'm pretty sure that's me done now............for a while at least.--Discolover18 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Awards

Hi. Simple question really??? Who can give out stars and awards. Is it just moderators? I just wanted to know.--Discolover18 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Aw no, anybody can. It's on the Wikilove tab. --John (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

• In the media: Opposition research firm blocked; Australian bushfires

• Featured content: From a wordless novel to a coat of arms via New York City

• Traffic report: Panic and denial

• Technology report: HHVM is the greatest thing since sliced bread

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For intervening on the talk page, it felt like banging my head against a wall, the guy simply wouldn't listen. WCM_email 13:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I know the other user a little and have worked on articles with them. Not sure whether this is a help or a hindrance. Time will tell. So far so good. --John (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Mountains in October 2000.<ref>Feb 25, 2000 "Making It Happen: Women and the Culture of Peace" (UNESCO/World Peace www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/2000schedule.htm</ref> She is the daughter of a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bracketbot for your vigilance. If any of my talk-page watcher feel like fixing up that article, I would be grateful. --John (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Uncivility at Acupuncture

Greetings! Before things getting any rougher, can you have a quick look at the latest happenings at Talk:Acupuncture#Restoration of verifiable material. This time very little to read, don't worry :-)

Anyway, comments like "I'll explain this in language that you can understand: Quack quack quack, quack quack quack quack. Quack quack! (Dominus Vobisdu 15:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC))"[83], followed by "I think it is time that quackupuncturists here are reminded forcefully that we edit wikipedia from a mainstream scientific point of view, and crocodile tears about fringe whitewashing from two obviously wp:conflicted editors just wont wash (Roxy the dog™ 15:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC))"[84] hardly seem like WP:CIVIL to me. On the opposite, all of a sudden the atmosphere is getting really hostile at the article again.

In this Article's edit summary by Dominus Vobisdu, the same rhetoric continues again: "Fringe whitewashing". I find this especially harmful for developing the article as editors with such an agressive, uncivil agenda all of a sudden engage in making reverts at the article: no discussion, no addition to the article. By using soft means, perhaps a small administrative word could ease the situation? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have left the two editors concerned messages. I am prepared to block if this is repeated. I agree that it is unacceptable. --John (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

John, I think that disruption is not limited with that page. Dominus Vobisdu has been also disrupting Ayurveda and failing to follow Wikipedia:BRD. You can look at the edit history of this article and you would know that it was the long standing content(probably included since article was written) and Dominus Vobisdu has made no policy backed rationale for his edits, neither roxy the dog has. I had brought it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Medicine#MEDRS verification where consensus was established to include these, I don't see anyone who disagreed, although I count about 5 6 people who agreed with my edit. But as usual Dominus is edit warring, wikilawyering and not participating in the discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Domnicus has been also forum shopping(see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ayurveda_and_modern_medical_terminology) Bladesmulti (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I took a look and I agree that this behaviour is unacceptable. As this editor had recently been warned for similar misbehaviour I have blocked them for 48 hours. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. --John (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog seems to be making edits for Dominus_Vobisdu, unlike him, he's not removing the references, but ultimately the English translated terms that Dominus Vobisdu didn't liked. [85] -[86]. Technically that's the same type of edit, Dominus Vobisdu was edit warring for, without consensus. As you are more aware of what to link, even you would know that medical terms are to be linked, at least once on article. Remember that WhatamIdoing, Blueraspberry, Littleoliveoil, and others told Dominus and Roxythedog to don't censor. But Roxy the dog is doing same edit warring [87], making changes without consensus or replying to the discussion that is being made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for last 24 hours and more, but telling me to follow BRD (misleading edit summary), just like Dominus did. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. Canvassing even more, and misrepresentation. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There's none, and this is not canvassing as he's not being invited to make edits on my behalf. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the messages. I will try to post a more definitive solution in article talk tonight. I would love to get by without blocking anyone else. Let's see what we can do. One thing I would strongly suggest meantime is that you avoid using words like "censor". --John (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and I was actually redirecting to comments like these[88]. You are correct but I just quoted. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've posted my proposals on this in article talk. See what you think. --John (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm more and more convinced that it isn't incivility allegedly driving editors away, but more likely over zealous mop handling. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this recent edit[89] on the talk page? I asked for citations that would include regard it as pseudoscience on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ayurveda, and couple of citations were provided, although the main aspect remains that it is pre-science. It is unclear if sanctions have to be necessarily reminded on article talk(page). Commonly the user' talk page is enough for reminding about the sanctions. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Did you notice that there were women in the oppose group that you joined 2 years ago, but - to my knowledge - not in the support group? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you remind me what this refers to? --John (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, with math, tomorrow ;) - I received a thank-you-click today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary.

Hello John, pleased to make your acquaintance! Nothing personal, but I have reverted some of your edits to Tintin in Tibet, as I did not agree they were an improvement. Believe me, this article has already been copy edited. I kept those that were a definite improvement. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly ok, nothing personal from my side either. My first thought was that perhaps you are not a native speaker of English, but I see that you are. We all have to work with the talents we have, I suppose, and I think I would rather continue this conversation in article talk than here. Thanks for bringing your actions to my attention. --John (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Yes, I subjected this article to around twenty native speakers of English who heavily copy edited its grammar; I thought I was quite good at it but I learned a lot from their expertise (as I often do from so many good people here at Wikipedia). I hope you and I get to work together someday! Good to chat with you, have a great one. Prhartcom (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

• Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy?

• In the media: College player falsely linked to sports scandal by Wikipedia; the Nobel Prizes

• Arbitration report: One case closed and two opened

• Featured content: Bells ring out at the Temple of the Dragon at Peace

• Technology report: Attempting to parse wikitext

• Traffic report: Now introducing ... mobile data

• WikiProject report: Signpost reaches the Midwest

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ships that have sex

Thanks for the op-ed about girl ships. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it. --John (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For your consideration

Item 2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it before, and I am in general a great admirer of MastCell. Thank you for bringing it to my attention again. Is this in relation to my Op-Ed or to something else? --John (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Great Signpost editorial!

I really enjoyed reading your editorial on 15 Oct 2014 titled "Ships—sexist or sexy?". Keep up the great work! Matt Heard (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. I'm glad you liked it. --John (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

gnome
Thank you for articles covering South Africa and Scotland, for copy-editing, for designing barnstars, for your collection of quotes on forgiveness, and for your oppose against a main stream, - repeating, you are an awesome Wikipedian (1 November 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 279th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Gerda, it's a pleasure to work with you. --John (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

New bridge

How goes it? Can you check this for us. Thanks mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, keep 'em coming! --John (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers mate--Discolover18 (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

• Featured content: Admiral on deck: a modern Ada Lovelace

• Op-ed: Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution—a wiki-protest

• In the media: The story of Wikipedia; Wikipedia reanimated and republished; New UK government social media rules; death of Italian Wikipedia administrator

• Traffic report: Death, War, Pestilence... Movies and TV

• WikiProject report: De-orphanning articles—a huge task but with a huge team of volunteers to help

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Hi John, I would like you to consider proposing/imposing more-or-less the same kinds of constraints at acupuncture as you did at Ayurveda, or perhaps something preliminary. The article has a lot of problems, and a glance at the talk page will show both the good potential (e.g. here) and toxic reality (same section, and passim) that exist there. There is tendentiousness and POV-pushing from both the skeptic and advocate sides.

IIRC, you mentioned at Talk:Ayurveda that user conduct issues should be addressed on other pages. That would be good. Several of the editors at acupuncture have failed to heed that, worst of all myself and QuackGuru, who have a toxic ongoing feud that keeps flaring up. A particularly bad (but sadly, not very unusual) example is this: Talk:Acupuncture#Continued_controversial_changes. It's just nuts. There's a lot of history there.

So there is the dynamic with me and QuackGuru.... and then there is QuackGuru, who has ownership issues (cf. AN thread from Feb). See these results from Wikichecker for acupuncture and chiropractic; QuackGuru has edited each more than the next 20 editors combined. Also compare their respective talk page edits [90][91]; QuackGuru is the only editor with more mainspace than talk space edits. He is not the easiest editor to collaborate with, and that's not just my opinion. He's made a ton of edits, uniquely so, and as such bears significant responsibility for the difficult environment. (Which is not to deny that we all do, and that it's not only about edit count.)

In general, multiple editors have complained that there isn't much room for a reasonable middle ground at the acupuncture article. We need good editors to come and stay, and the right change in the weather could bring that about. Your changes at the Ayurveda article struck me as interesting and different, and in the present climate -- as Bill Murray said in Groundhog Day -- different is good. The only disagreement I had was that I'd prefer 1RR, or at least a 1RR-limited BRD as an exception to 0RR -- and BTW, I think Jytdog, who left the ayurveda article because of 0RR, is the kind of editor who's worth keeping. But maybe you won't want to take this on at all, which is natural; one can only do so much.... Anyway, happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful message. I've been meaning to revisit ayurveda and will try to think about your suggestion as I do so. Groundhog Day is a great favourite of mine by the way. --John (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@John, thank you, and I'll have a look at ayurveda as well, at some point. Yes, I never get tired of "Groundhog Day". It holds up to repeat viewings in a way nothing else quite does. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If M8 thinks this is a good idea, then I'm afraid it just confirms my own feeling that 0RR is a disaster. Others with far more experience and competence than myself have already indicated the same. Please don't let this fringe proposal from a fringe editor influence you. Put away your bludgeon mop. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll certainly take your comment into account as well, Roxy the dog. As I think I said I am completely neutral on these issues and am only concerned that people's time should not be wasted in unnecessary disputes. I should make it over to both pages later tonight or early tomorrow, UTC. --John (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Roxy the dog Yes, as your careful reading of my last paragraph above revealed to you, I do prefer 0RR to 1RR, same as Jytdog. And just as surely, I espouse fringe views. You're very perceptive. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't need to be very perceptive to note that an acupuncturist such as yourself espouses fringe views. I suspect that given a choice, Jytdog might have another view. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

(Like Jytdog, I either prefer 1RR over 0RR or vice-versa, and -- if you didn't catch it yet -- you got those mixed up....) But my point is that you're engaging in hasty generalization. On your "fringe" claim, got diffs? If you're right, then surely you can produce a diff where I make or espouse a mainspace edit that is obviously outside the mainstream. (One within the last couple years please; we all learn.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 01:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

All points taken. It will be later tonight now before I can look at this, sorry. --John (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sting

The vandal has returned to the Sting page. Rodericksilly (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You did the right thing to revert them. Let me know if there are repeated attempts to change it from multiple IPs and I can semi-protect again. --John (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just done it again and I'm getting more than a little bored with him. Why can't he be banned? Rodericksilly (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't ban them, that would need to be a community decision. I have blocked this IP address and will block any others I see in the future. I don't know what else I can do in the meantime. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy A7

Since speedy A7 does not apply to schools, I reverted your deletion of Whittier International Elementary School . Notthat it's notable, but that it should be redirected o he appropriate locality of school district. DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great. --John (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

www.TorahSummary.org

Please see my talk page under section www.TorahSummary.org. This kind of requires your attention, and have a happy Halloween --Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk. --John (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User has replied -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Featured articles

Hi John. How you getting on mucker?? I was wondering how to get articles 'featured' on the main page?? Does Wiki just pick ones or can articles be requested. Obviously I would like one of mine to be featured, lol. Is this possible?--Discolover18 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that simple. See WP:FAC. Your article first has to be peer reviewed by some pretty hard-assed reviewers. --John (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed...hard-assed with high standards - the best of the best. They have my admiration and respect. The review process helps make us better editors. I believe in and strongly support it as I'm sure you do as well. Utopia for me would be a Wikipedia with a much greater need for reviewing and assessing articles for GA and FA, and far less need for ANIs and ARB Com reviews. Atsme☯^Consult 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right. I could not agree with you more. --John (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

• Featured content: Go West, young man

• In the media: Wikipedia a trusted source on Ebola; Wikipedia study labeled government waste; football biography goes viral

• Maps tagathon: Find 10,000 digitised maps this weekend

• Traffic report: Ebola, Ultron, and Creepy Articles

• Recent research: Informed consent and privacy; newsmaking on Wikipedia; Wikipedia and organizational theories

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Poland Barnstar of National Merit
		Please accept this barnstar as a token of my gratitude for your help with the article on Warsaw Uprising (1794). Instead of wasting your time on describing what's wrong with the article, you simply stepped forward and fixed it. Such good work should not go unnoticed. //Halibutt 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dziękuję, że jest dobry. --John (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, I gave you the barnstar before I noticed what you did to my other pet project, the article on Battle of Warsaw (1831). Since another barnstar could be boring, here's a chapel for you. In other words - thanks mate. It must've taken ages to read through the article :) //Halibutt 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a very great pleasure to read and tinker with two such interesting articles. I learned a lot. I look forward eagerly to working with you on these in the future, and on helping you get them through FAC in the fullness of time. --John (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing this sentence: [92] to clarify that we are talking about two names of the same conflict. I hope this sounds better? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi John. I was wondering if you could check this draft. I've never done an article like this before. Also, I couldn't get the photo to fit in the infobox. Maybe it's something I'm doing wrong or the infobox is gubbed in some way. Also, is the gallery too much?? Anyway if the (small) article is good, can you move it into main space for us.--Discolover18 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking. --John (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to the mainspace. I did in the end think the gallery was unnecessary so I removed it. The infobox image worked ok for me. Nice work, mucker! --John (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't the greatest article, however, cheers for your help john.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

User:QuackGuru was told about zero revert rule on Ayurveda.[93] Due to his edit warring [94] [95], one user needed to open an Rfc,(see Talk:Ayurveda#Should_this_article_be_categorized_as_.22pseudoscience.22.3F) after the apparent agreement on Rfc,(although it is still on going) he is still repeating the same edits[96]. Page needs to be protected. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

His forum shopping[97] is also becoming disruptive. A full fledged discussion was recently made on this board, and still remains there. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, on two occasions QG added sourced material and it was Bladesmulti who reverted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris Adding just anything is not enough, you need to establish some agreement. On talk page of the article, there is still no agreement to add any of these edits. John has told that any kind of misconduct on this page should be reported to him, you can also view archives and search quackguru and ayurveda. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought John's No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism meant there were to be no reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious WP:VANDALISM. But perhaps I am misreading.

With regard to QG's post to a community noticeboard, note John also said Discussions may be referred to central noticeboards like WP:NPOVN or to WP:RFC, in fact I encourage this. Perhaps he meant only those two noticeboards and not WP:FTN, or perhaps I am again misreading.

I do agree that there's misconduct on that page, from many parties. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

On just any page, per Wikipedia:BRD, if edits have been reverted at least 3 times, by 2 or more editors, he should not add them back. John had added - Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand. Last time, when FTN was still opened, he was repeating same question on 3 pages, [98] [99] [100](same as [101]), today he posted on FTN [102] which is of course misuse of that noticeboard. May have been better if he had posted it on relevant wikiprojects. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru found to be misrepresenting a citation on lead. Read [103] [104] Bladesmulti (talk)

• I have blocked Quackguru one week and Bladesmulti 48 hours, both for disruptive editing at Ayurveda. Lest anyone read anything into the different block lengths, these merely reflect the differing block logs of the two users and do not imply any difference in degree of misbehaviour. I will be happy to unblock either user if they undertake to respect normal editing practices at that article, as was discussed at article talk recently. Any admin watching here is specifically invited to pitch in here if they have any opinions about these blocks, or if they think this requires review at AN/I. QuackGuru, it is common sense in a situation like this to await firm consensus in talk before making controversial additions to the article, as we have previously discussed. This is even more true when there is an ongoing RfC at article talk. Bladesmulti, you reverted not once but twice while pointing out to the other user the 0RR I had requested at the article. Even without 0RR, reverting during a content dispute when the addition was non-vandalistic was disruptive. --John (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 has violated copyrights on his sandbox[105] and Talk:Ayurveda.[106] He was aware of copyright infringement policy and he had warned others before.[107] - [108] Bladesmulti (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You had told that there should be no name calling, per #2 (Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward) yet, Roxy the dog claims that those people who agreed with the restrictions "are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority"[109] Bladesmulti (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As an observation, those people who have agreed with the restrictions are those who are pushing the "pro-Ayurveda", position, whether or not they are fringe-pushers. That suggests problems with your approach. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And they are not pushing the pro-Ayurveda position. So what now? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I didn't notice these posts. Let me have a look. --John (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bladesmulti, I have blocked Roxy the dog 24 hours. These comments were unacceptable. --John (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi John. Is it still taking ages for reviews. If it is, can you hook this one up for us. It's only small. Cheers mucker.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Discolover18. For the first time I find I have a qualm over one of your proposed articles. Is the park truly notable by Wikipedia's standards if the only coverage is from the organisation which runs the park? Would it be better perhaps to write an article on Thomas Shanks (engineer), with some information about the modern park which bears his name? We could have Thomas Shanks Park as a redirect to the engineer article. There are not that many sources out there but I found one or two, which may make that a more profitable way forward, especially if you can find more. What do you think? --John (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And here is an interesting book hit. I think this might be the way forward. Let me know what you think. --John (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your right I think. Seems fairly interesting. I will need to try that one later. In work at the minute, so limited internet access. Thanks again though John.--Discolover18 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

R U Professional ?

• "R U Professional"

Hey John,

So I know you're professional so I'm asking your help as a professional to help professionally copy edit the article R U Professional?

But seriously, at the suggestion of Ian Rose from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1, I enlisted your help copy editing Fuck (film), and you did such a great job I'd love it if you could take a look at "R U Professional"?

It's a WP:GA article that's been through several prior stages of review including AFD, DYK, GA, and Peer Review, and I'd appreciate help in furthering along the quality improvement process.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. --John (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just let me know when you're doing with the copy edits pass through? — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I should get a chance tonight. --John (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a first pass. It looks good. I will have more tinkering to do I expect. Are you thinking of going to FAC with it? --John (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks great so far. Yes, I was thinking of going to FAC. I had a request up at WP:GOCE but I'm debating removing that when you're doing with your copy editing. Let me know what you think about that, — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, will do. --John (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay the editor from WP:GOCE is done, so let me know when you're doing as well and I should be all set. :) — Cirt (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

John, any updates? :) — Cirt (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I will try to have a look today or tomorrow. --John (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks! :) — Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to finish the copy edit pass? — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I have done as much as I can do on that article. --John (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay great, thank you very much !!! — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft

How goes it John sir?? I've been working on this draft, can you let us know what you think and move it if it's good. Nice one mate, cheers.--Discolover18 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I will have a look later tonight. --John (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool, cool.--Discolover18 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I managed to do that. Nice article. --John (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with all your edits mate, cheers.--Discolover18 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

• In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories

• Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sting

Guess what, he's back. Rodericksilly (talk)

I blocked again. --John (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John. You have new messages at Adyoo3's talk page.
Message added 06:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do you mind taking on the question on the bottom, or do you want me to do it? I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your imposition of editing restrictions.. The thread is Ayurveda. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gosh. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with your conduct in this issue, from your apparent inability to read the full text of the restriction, to your POINTy abuse of your protection right, to your thoroughly weak summing up at AN/I, to your laughable suggestion that I should apologise to an edit-warrior for blocking them, to the fact that you had to go to a drama board at all, rather than just ask nicely like any normal person would. Weren't you desysopped for a while? Don't bother to reply here, I will dig it out for myself. If not perhaps you should be. Please feel free to ping me here if you are ever being desysopped again; other than that feel free to keep your shenanigans off my page. --John (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

William of Wrotham again..

I know I asked earlier and then did nothing. It's been a wild year here outside wikiworld, but it seems that things are calming down a bit. Think you and any TPSs could look him over, for grammar, and any missing context? I'm thinking Mil-hist A-class then FAC. I've also got a very interesting guy to write up ... forger, slave-trader and general all around scoundrel! Not a bishop though... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I will be happy to have a look. I always enjoy working on your articles. --John (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I remember this one now. It's only a couple of months since I last looked it over. It's as good as I can make it grammar and prose-wise, but that doesn't mean one of my many talk page watchers couldn't help out and improve it further. Anybody? --John (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda - At your request

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.

---

Since you requested a response here, here it is.

Please lift the 0RR restriction from Ayurveda. Whatever it's intent, it's failed because editors simply will not work under the restrictions, and our repeated requests for discussions on those restrictions went unanswered. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In what way has it failed? Editors who are not able to edit without calling other editors names, without reverting blindly, and without agreeing important changes at a controversial page, are not an asset, and would be blocked in any case for their behaviour. Calling it 0RR merely makes it easier to explain and enforce. In practice there have been no 0RR blocks at all, and I regard this as a success, so while I take your comment on board, I have to hold off agreeing with it in the absence of any evidence. --John (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been two blocks which you, John, imposed, and almost straight away rescinded. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And? --John (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And? And? It is obvious isn't it. I was pointing out your dishonesty when you said that there had been no 0RR blocks at all. I couldn't let that deception slide by unremarked. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dishonesty? Deception? I am sorry if you are still angry about your recent block. You acknowledged that I explained adequately why you were blocked, and no reviewing admin saw fit to lift the block. You have now served your block and it is time for introspection. I encourage you to continue to self-reflect with a view to improving your behaviour so you can avoid being blocked again. The two previous blocks you mention were discussed just above, in the section #Ayurveda. Neither was for 0RR, so it is true to say that no 0RR blocks have been issued. I encourage you to apologise for your misunderstanding, which I accept was an honest one, for the sake of your own self-esteem. Please be aware that there is no bitterness on my part about your name-calling, but do be aware that you will be blocked again if you disrupt again at Talk:Ayurveda. --John (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I made no such acknowledgement at all. Please re-read the section more carefully. I have finished my introspection, but I urge you to heed the criticism and questioning about your motives and behaviour you have had from fellow admins and other editors over the last 24 hours. We expect far better of admins than you have demonstrated recently. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. You did actually but ok. I will take your comments with all the seriousness they deserve. I do again encourage you to continue your growth as an editor, but perhaps here and now will not be the best. I will close this section for now as I have answered all your questions. --John (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@John: I made a simple request about the reliability of a source at Ayurveda, and I was immediately accused of being disruptive by user Roxy the Dog.[110] After all his warnings and sanctions, I doubt if this user is going to change his course of behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, he answered to me by saying: "It was explained very clearly by Dominus Vobisdu in the comment directly below this one", and "Read it, and stop being disruptive please. Thanks." Here is the explanation by Dominus Vobisdu that he was pertaining to and advised me to read: "And that just ain't gonna happen because most real physicians and scientists would vomit at the mere thought.". I wonder, how WP:CIVIL is that? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It certainly isn't very civil but I suppose this editor is annoyed at having just been blocked so we will cut him some slack this time. --John (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do you require that editors will not work on it, beyond the multiple statements already made?

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not prevent it. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If a consensus of uninvolved admins thinks there is a better way forward I will be happy to look at that. Other than that I stand by what I said at 17:54. Consider the possibility that if you think it is important to be able to call other editors names, and revert their work without discussion, you may be part of the problem. --John (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs please if you believe those comments apply to me. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I said at 17:54. Consider the possibility that if you think it is important to be able to call other editors names, and revert their work without discussion, you may be part of the problem. --John (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith that somehow your comments apply to someone other than myself, though the lack of diffs makes the claims questionable. Given QG was involved, I wouldn't be surprised though.

0RR doesn't address problems with name calling.

If all you care about is stopping the reverts, then 0RR is one possible solution.

If you want editors to discuss matters and form consensus, then the imposition of 0RR has been a failure.

So again, are we here to improve the encyclopedia or not?

Given that the article falls under WP:AE, there are many other possible solutions, all that involve getting others involved. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I said at 17:54. Consider the possibility that if you think it is important to be able to call other editors names, and revert their work without discussion, you may be part of the problem. --John (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2014 (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.

Demiurge1000

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, would you please explain who was the target of the personal attack for which you blocked User:Roxy the dog ? Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The block is fully explained at the blocked user's page. Is your header an accusation? If so, I would be interested to see the evidence you have for that accusation. --John (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I've looked at the blocked user's talk page, and it is still not clear whom you feel was the target of the personal attack for which you blocked. Could you clarify, please? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The block is fully explained at the blocked user's page. Is your header an accusation? If so, I would be interested to see the evidence you have for that accusation.--John (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will give you a couple of days to see if you have anything more after further reflection. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no point, I won't have anything to add after a couple of days. I stand fully by my block, for the reasons I explained to the blocked user. Your question is a false one, akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" I did not block for a personal attack directed to a specific user, but for the harassment embodied in the edit for which the user was blocked, following a general warning at article talk and a specific warning at the user's talk page. I note that you have not explained your accusatory header, nor have you modified it to a more neutral or descriptive one. Let me advise you that this sort of hostile behaviour does not promote harmonious working. It is therefore likely that if you continue in this vein, I may reserve the right to take further measures, most likely politely asking you to stay off my talk page. Or you could just change it and say sorry, if as I suspect you have no reason to consider me involved in the area and this was just rhetoric. Your call, of course. --John (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2014 (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.

Ayurveda restrictions

I think the consensus at WP:ANI#Ayurveda is pretty clear that your WP:0RR restriction is unworkable for this article. Do you wish to undertake putting the notice on the talk page voiding the restriction yourself?—Kww(talk) 22:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? I haven't been watching. I will take a look myself later and see what I think. --John (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Kww for bringing this to my attention. It seems there is a serious and concerted effort going on there, see my recent post to the discussion. In the circumstances I may well withdraw entirely from the area, though I also may consider undertaking a similar set of sanctions under ArbCom enforcement. We shall see. In the meantime, pending clarification, it would be well to consider my restriction as still active. --John (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't have that choice, User:John. The question is whether you accept the courtesy of being permitted to withdraw them yourself, or whether someone else will have to undertake the step of publicly overriding you. The consensus is clear: the restrictions you have placed are both unworkable and harmful.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I have raised a potentially more serious question in the discussion you refer to. Please read it before you comment further on the matter. --John (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your concerns have validity, but that is unrelated to the fact that no one is in favor of your 0RR restriction. It baffles me as to what support you believe you have for it.—Kww(talk) 00:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

An article in a permanent state of edit-warring should either be fully locked or placed under 0RR restriction. -A1candidate (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with A1candidate here. As we know, Wikipedia is not a democracy. When it comes to discussion, it is clearly stated that: "...editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanction." (WP:TALKDONTREVERT)

As it is said,

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's true, and how I tend to look at things. The problem here is that we have some editors with behavioural problems (predominantly on one side of the dispute) and a group of other editors arguing for low-quality edits that would tend to make our treatment of Ayruveda unreasonably favourably and could even mislead readers into believing it had some factual merit. It's hard to supervise the article in a way that both discourages the bad behaviour and the poor editing. In general, if I have to choose between discouraging false content and discouraging poor behaviour, I'll tends towards discouraging the inclusion of false content.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll decline to get into a discussion about the philosophical merits of what constitutes "false content" on an article like this, even though I am tempted; I have History and Philosophy of Science on my Chemistry degree so the appetite is there but it would not be proper. Suffice it to say that I get the nuances of this area. I think I know what bad behaviour is though. It consists of edit-warring and name-calling, and I would prefer it if folk at articles like this could engage in civilised debate about the sources and the due weight of the sources, without recourse to these bad editing practices. --John (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There are hardly 4 issues with the article. About 2/4 proposal have faced no objections. Only 2 of the other proposals have. Like I had said on AN/I that we can probably solve these problems in a single day, if others are really willing to contribute. I am sure after that we won't need any other sanctions and article can be brought back to its pre-18 October mode. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer it as well, John. The problem is how to discourage bad behaviour without simultaneously encouraging editors that would make pseudoscience appear to have a factual foundation. I have never found a way to do that, and it's apparent from the results that you haven't found one either.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to hear I have your support. These things can take time and patience is required. If this isn't fixed by next Easter I will be disappointed. --John (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that you recognize that while I support your goal, I think your techniques are making the problem worse, not better.—Kww(talk) 17:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? Yet you "have never found a way to do that" either. Perhaps you should watch and learn. --John (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to the part of the plan that will ensure that edits promoting pseudoscience are never retained. That's the part of this effort that you don't even seem to acknowledge as necessary. You seem intent on controlling the behaviour of a group of highly frustated editors, but don't seem to have any intention of acknowledging the source of that frustration: people inserting support for pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Kww, can you find me a diff where you found people inserting support for pseudoscience and can you describe how source misrepresentation or pseudo historical revisionism could be justified? Even when it was asked to provide the relevant citations discussing AV as pseudoscience, and nothing was done. Sanctions were placed because of disruptive editing, including the removal the longstanding editions with the false reasoning like "it has no source"(though it had) and lack of participation on talk pages or wikiproject, what dominus vobisdu was doing. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ayurveda as (as I stated there) I'm thinking the 0RR is an arbcom discretionary sanction? If that's correct, you should log it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_page-level_sanctions NE Ent 23:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. See also Talk:Ayurveda#Reviewing_the_restrictions. --John (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• John, I've been watching this from the sidelines for a while. I admire your goal of trying to return the article to normal editing, and I'm glad that somebody is taking the time to tackle this problem. While I don't know all the details of your plan, I tend to concur with what others have said about 0RR being too harsh. In my opinion it puts the article in a position where it is more likely to be destabilized (the WP:STATUSQUO revision is no longer favored), creates unnecessary hoops for editors to jump through, and scares away the moderate editors (those who are least invested) who are the very people we want to be watching/editing the article. Is there any way I could convince you to modify the restrictions to be 1RR instead of 0RR? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned at the drama board on 13 November and then again on article talk on 14 November I accept that the 0RR is unpopular, even with some people whose opinions I respect as neutral, so I am willing to compromise. The question is how we prevent well-meaning people from making blind reverts rather than discussing content. The "comment on content, not contributors" line is easier to understand and this will remain in place. Thanks for your interest, and it would be great to see you along there helping to maintain editor behaviour. As in most disputes, editors on both sides believe they are right. --John (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The result of the pseudoscience arbitration was that we are supposed to favour people representing actual science. If your definition of "neutrality" is that you won't take steps to prevent people that favour various forms of pseudoscience from inserting statements that portray their perspective as factual into articles, you are doing a serious disservice to us all. Reverting statements that portray Ayurveda, acupuncture, faith healing, homeopathy, and similar material as being supported by science is behaviour you should be encouraging and supporting, not discouraging. Discouraging rudeness about it is fine, but you shouldn't be taking the stance that this is some form of unsettled dispute. The root problem is people that support pseudosciences. The secondary problem is that people that are weary of removing it have gotten rude and snippy in the process. —Kww(talk) 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @John, indeed, there is a lot of WP:MPOV on both sides. I'm glad you're willing to consider a compromise. I agree the "comment on content" rule is just fine and should stay. I think the next step should be to switch the 0RR to a 1RR, or enforced WP:BRD as some have suggested at WP:AN. I remember a couple years ago leading up the US Presidential election when User:TParis was enforcing something like that...there was an effective 1RR on the Paul Ryan article, so basically people could revert a bold edit, but if that turned into a revert war (reverting the revert without discussion/consensus) than the editors participating in the war would get a "final warning" and then some sort of topic ban for the next infraction. The "final warning" scared away a couple of the less-invested editors, but not so many as this 0RR seems to have done. Would you perhaps consider something along those lines? I have a couple more ideas, but I'm not quite ready to share those yet. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I remember a 1RR on Paul Ryan. It could have happened but I have a terrible memory. I do recall one on Ayn Rand, though. It worked splendidly. It is effectively a WP:BRD. Someone once pointed out a small difference between BRD and 1RR, I can't recall what it was, but the effect was minute.--v/r - TP 06:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
        • My worry with 1RR is that we can have tag-team edit-warring. Which is why I chose 0RR in the first place. I am not entirely convinced that 0RR is as bad as some people are suggesting, but I will accede to requests to relax it, just so long as the warriors do not take that as permission to restart hostilities. Does either of you have a wording to suggest? --John (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at User talk:QuackGuru

You were previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. You agreed. Now you have resotred comments after I deleted them.[111][112] Do you want to block me again because I am telling you again to not do that? QuackGuru (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's truly hilarious QuackGuru and I genuinely appreciate your effort to give me a laugh. Do you mind if I quote this on my user page? --John (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In all seriousness QG, you are exhibiting some pretty problematic behaviour right here. Misusing ArbCom notices like that is not too clever. Deleting messages off your talk page without replying to them is hostile behaviour. I will never block you for insulting me or other misbehaviour here at my talk page, but others may. I will be keeping an eye on your edits and you may wish to be extra careful around the areas we both know you have problems with. I was lenient and let you off for time served the last time; I may not be so lenient the next time. Remember, don't edit-war, discuss in talk and wait for consensus to form before making controversial changes, and do not make personal remarks about editors or groups of editors on article talk pages. You have been warned. --John (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog block

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.

---

This does not look like a good block. I think it takes an unusually thin skin to be offended by Roxy the dog's remarks. I think you should undo this. This is exactly the kind of thing that could indeed get you in front of Arbcon, so I'd get out in front of it by correcting your mistake. Msnicki (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA carefully -A1candidate (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the guidelines. Consider what they ask at WP:BEFOREBLOCK. I don't think this was satisfied. Roxy the dog is an experienced editor and deserved both some leeway and some coaching rather blocking. Msnicki (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

RTD has engaged in very distateful threats and attempts to intimidate such as:

• "Flogging a dead horse George. Is your real name Dullman?"
• "Watch out for the boomerang catching you on the back of the neck."

RTD has also repeatedly resorted to name-calling and insults such as:

• "Whenever you want kid"
• "You are now being a hypocrite"
• "For a homeopathasist to accuse people of "not giving it a thought" and "Misleading either by intent or naivety" is hypocrisy gone mad. So sad."
• "I think it is time that quackupuncturists here are reminded forcefully that we edit wikipedia from a mainstream scientific point of view

He has been warned not to engage in personal attacks but continues to do so repeatedly. I think an indefinite ban might be the most appropriate for now because I don't see any "leeway" for blatant and repeated offences. -A1candidate (talk) 7:44 pm, 13 November 2014, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

I recommend a thicker skin. Msnicki (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:NPA again and respect the guidelines of Wikipedia -A1candidate (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog has also called others a fringe editor/s,[113]-[114] and more recently fringe pusher whoever agreed with the restrictions of John. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A "warning" five months is not a warning that counts today under WP:BEFOREBLOCK. The rest of these complaints are just so, so petty, one has to wonder how someone with a skin so thin as to be bothered by this even survives on the internet. Stuff about dead horses and boomerangs isn't a personal attack. Heck, we have essays on this stuff (e.g., WP:STICK and WP:BOOMERANG) that people reference all the time. And while calling someone a hypocrite is a little unkind, I just don't think it rises to the level of a blockable offense. I'll say again, I think you seriously need some thicker skin if this is all it takes to get under it. Msnicki (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in issuing repeated warning if the editor refuses to change his behavior. RTD has repeatedly engaged in a wide range of personal attacks that include name-calling ("Is your real name Dullman?") and insults ("quackupuncturists") as well as attempts to physically intimidate ("Watch out for the boomerang catching you on the back of the neck.") There is absolutely no excuse for such behavior. Also, please stop accusing me of having a "thin" skin. I feel personally insulted by such a comment and I request that you remove or strike it off immediately, Thank you. -A1candidate (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2014 (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.

Harassment

Hi John, according to this demiurge1000's conduct on your talk is harassment. 42.202.146.58 (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Arguably that's true. Administrators need to have a thick skin, and bluster is often an effective tactic so who can blame User:Demiurge1000 for trying it once. So long as it doesn't happen again, we'll call it quits. --John (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. Demiurge1000 makes yet another threat, the third one, if you're to count this one. 42.202.146.58 (talk)

Sorry, accidentally edited a closed section

Hi John! Sorry, I got confused while glancing through the diffs and got editing the section you already closed! Really, that wasn't my intention. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. --John (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi, John. I've been trying to understand your reasoning for this block. My best guess so far is that Roxy the dog used the phrase "fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority" in this edit, and that you interpreted that as name calling in defiance of your editing restrictions here. Was that your reasoning? [I previously asked this question at the user page of Roxy the dog. But maybe this is a better place to ask it.] Cardamon (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I said four days ago there. --John (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

• In the media: Amazon Echo; EU freedom of panorama; Bluebeard's Castle

• Traffic report: Holidays, anyone?

• Featured content: Wikipedia goes to church in Lithuania

• WikiProject report: Talking hospitals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyeditng of Constitution of May 3, 1791

In reference to the request from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4 (June that year), I wonder if you would have more time/will to look at this article? I would like to resubmit to FAC, but I am afraid the deputy director will veto it again unless you or Eric c/e it (since those are two names he mentioned, and c/e by what is at that point about half a dozen of other editors was not good enough for him...). I'd appreciate your assistance in this matter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look, maybe later today. --John (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, I have had an initial look and I think it will need a few nips and tucks. I am getting too tired to look at it tonight, but there is every chance I can start work in the next day or two. I apologise for starting to copyedit it a few months ago and then seemingly not finishing the job. I know the FAC was archived but honestly I should still have finished it. So this one is under warranty, as it were. Thanks for asking me. --John (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It will be good to bring this saga to a triumphant end :) (I've been trying to get this Featured for almost 10 years :D) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon

Stop undoing my edits to the Nicola Sturgeon article. I included the reference to her middle name "Ferguson" in the section of the article dealing with her birth, rather than after her name at the top of the article, as that would be untidy looking etc. DO NOT REMOVE THAT AGAIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.2.207 (talk • contribs)

Any addition to any article has to be verifiable to proper sources. An addition to an article on a living person has an even stronger need to be verifiable. --John (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice please

I'm sure you'd rather not hear about this topic ever again, but we have a couple of editors trying to start the dramas about naming of football codes in Australia all over again. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#More edit wars, where we are told "we're going to revisit the matter with some solid facts and editors who didn't participate in that flawed process". It's less than eight month since that earlier process concluded, with what I thought was an understanding that the ruling would hold for a much longer period than that.

The edit warring referred to in the title of that thread was, in fact, by a new editor who the above editor happens to agree with. You can see the new editor's views in several threads at User talk:Lajamibr. Some very inflammatory comments are already being made. Lots of accusations of bias and POV pushing levelled at me (and by implication at you). I have tried to settle things by referring back to the consensus you helped us achieve, to no avail.

It's only fair to mention that I, and the editor who wrote the above italicised text, have only very recently had an I-Ban between us lifted.

For obvious reasons, I'm seeking help and guidance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I then just had this posted on my Talk page. It is so full of false assumptions and insults that I felt it safer to simply delete it without argument. Can anything be done to stop this editor's silliness? HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just remembered. I had already deleted from my Talk page an allegation from this editor that I had breached WP:3RR. I hadn't. He is already guilty of harassment and personal attacks. I don't want this to escalate. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think you breached 3RR either. I suggest you stop contributing to that discussion, having made your point. Anyone is welcome to revisit the matter by starting a central discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). --John (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I was certain we discussed somehow locking that consensus in place for a couple of years, but I can't find that anywhere now. Another discussion now would really be quite disruptive. The tone of the comments addressed at me is pretty troubling already. And nothing has changed since the earlier decision. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 3, but it only relates to the article Soccer in Australia, for which any further discussion of naming is postponed until next August. The more general field of naming in relation to this sport in Australia may be revisited at any time by any editor. It may not be edit-warred over though, and I would have blocked for that were it still ongoing. As it seems to have settled down I won't this time. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. --John (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi John. If you have a minute, could you look in at Talk: The Beatles Boxed Set#Article name change? Following the discussion there (which started with a page move in July), there have been a couple of relevant page moves between 02:28 and 03:07 today. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look. Are you looking for a third opinion (editor) or administrative action there? --John (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A third opinion; administrative action isn't appropriate, since these guys aren't blatently edit warring yet. Please read the discussion, and you'll find that there is no reason to move the article since it is currently not inappropriately nor incorrectly titled. Radiopathy •talk• 11:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrative action, I guess. The reason for the change in July from The Beatles Box Set to The Beatles Boxed Set was apparently to use the "correct term". This wasn't correct per the official title of the set, it was "correct" per the same editor's insistence that the term "box set" is "just wrong". The page move in July was challenged at Talk: The Beatles Boxed Set, but the editor came up with nothing to support the change; they asked for print/book sources over AllMusic, they got them. It's the same situation since I came to the Talk page a few days ago. Nothing supports the idea that "Boxed" should appear in this article title – it should never have been changed in July.

Just recently, GoingBatty changed it back to "… Box Set"; it was then changed again to "Boxed", straightaway, apparently because there was no consensus. Not only was there indeed consensus for "Box" (at least, if I understand "consensus" correctly – GoingBatty and I agreed on the same course of action), but there was certainly no consensus at all for the July page move. So when it comes to who's "blatently edit warring" (or isn't), I'd say Radiopathy's already there, having changed the title of an article with no sources to back up the move. JG66 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy, is that true? --John (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. These guys are part of the "the Beatles" contingent; they're involved in a pointy page move discussion over a benign issue for no reason other than I was on the opposing side of the "the Beatles" discussion. I've had other problems with JG reverting changes of mine which were verified by reliable sources, simply out of spite. When I mentioned this at the move discussion yesterday, suddenly, after the discussion sat dormant four months, it was decided that reliable sources favour "box set" and the move was made. No one was able to show where the article was innapropriately or incorrectly titled. Radiopathy •talk• 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this previous disagreement is motivating those you are having the dispute with? What do the reliable sources in fact say? It's good practice to keep different kinds of dispute separate. You should not personalise content disputes and you should not hold content disagreements against people, who may be otherwise good people. --John (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is all completely false. I was fiercely anti "the Beatles". Besides, to say that whichever side of the fence I was on (The/the Beatles) would motivate my thoughts regarding an album title, that's ludicrous.

The only time I can think of when Radiopathy's actually provided a source was regarding the word "orientated", which I'd reverted to "oriented" at an album article. (I since reverted my own change, acknowledging that "orientated" was correct in BritEng.)

I don't know if in their mind, "simply out of spite" applies to when I've reverted Radiopathy's changes from "box set" to "boxed set" at an album article I had nominated for GA at the time, and at an album article I'd expanded for GA (although Yeepsi took that nom), and another GA. It led to a charming exchange on my talk page. As linked to above, there had been a move request at Talk:Box set; Radiopathy's proposal (to re-title that article as "Boxed set") was denied, convincingly. Yet they continued (and continue) to change mentions of "box set" to "boxed set" at various articles, stating it's the "correct term", even though: a) "box set" is the standard term used in the music industry, in retail, in the media, and b) it was obvious from that Talk:Box set discussion that the majority of participants were anti-"boxed set" – which one would imagine might be reflective of the wider community, at least of the editors who work on music articles. I'm just going into detail on this because, a) I don't believe what's been said about me is warranted at all, and b) I can't help thinking the "Box set -> Boxed set" issue (also in July) is relevant to this Beatles album title being changed.

But trying to get back on track: "When I mentioned this at the move discussion yesterday, suddenly, after the discussion sat dormant four months, it was decided that reliable sources favour "box set" and the move was made." I don't know what that means exactly – four months ago, it was decided (i.e. shown) that sources favoured The Beatles Box Set. The move was "suddenly" made because Radiopathy had provided nothing to support "Boxed" and, quite honestly, was acting as if it was an affront that they might be expected to have a source to support renaming an album article. "No one was able to show where the article was innapropriately or incorrectly titled" … Well, GoingBatty had, and then I did – we've provided sources that give the title as it was before the page move in July.

I agree with those two messages below (posted while I've been deliberating over this): keep content discussion together on the article talk page. I just wanted to answer some of the things said above first, rather than bringing any baggage over there. JG66 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @John, JG66, and Radiopathy: I have responded at Talk: The Beatles Boxed Set#Article name change because I prefer to keep the conversation in one place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs)

I absolutely encourage you all to continue the content discussion at the article talk page. User:JG66 asked me to take a look at user conduct. I am beginning to form an opinion about that, but I will wait until User:Radiopathy has had a chance to respond to my points above before I make my recommendations. --John (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As 24 hours have now passed since I pinged User:Radiopathy without comment I am going to assume that they are withdrawing their proposal. User:JG66, I think this matter is now resolved. --John (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI - Radiopathy did reply at Talk: The Beatles Boxed Set#Article name change. GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. And (just to be clear) you still feel the same way after Radiopathy's reply at the album talk page? JG66 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any evidence that the title should be the way Radiopathy wants it to be, I think there is consensus in the talk to move the article back. --John (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• John, I was watching this discussion from afar, and so I moved the page back to its consensus name, but now Radiopathy has accused me of being a sock. Please advise. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Now they are edit warring on my userpage. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• They are also edit warring at the page in question. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi John. Just wanted to say a thank-you for your help with this matter. Best, JG66 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. That's what they pay me the big bucks for! --John (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Hi John,

(There's probably already a thread similar to this somewhere in your archives, but I'm crap at searching archives, so yeah).

I was reading this page. I totally concur with you about the Daily Mail, it's among the least reliable of sources; I was wondering if there's an easy way to see which articles use it as a reference, specifically BLPs. A big job I know, but I'd like to expunge it from BLPs in favour of better sources. Apologies again if this is going over old ground for you! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is among the worst sources it is possible to have for BLPs. I do not know of any way to search for it in BLPs. I certainly remove it from BLPs except where it is used as a source for something utterly unremarkable and I encourage everyone to do the same. --John (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Shame, well I guess I'll just remove it as and when I see it then. :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have time and energy to replace it with a better source that is obviously the best way to go. Failing that, I just remove material that is sourced only to tabloids. It does not belong on Wikipedia at all and certainly not on a BLP. --John (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)couldn't resist chipping in here. I heartily endorse Johns comments re the Daily Fail. It is an awful rag. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We're all in agreement there. Yeah, better sourcing or removal will be my approach too. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dylanfromthenorth, is this what you're looking for? 84.13.32.216 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A bit unrefined, but yeah I can work with that, thanks! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, 84.13.32.216. --John (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And so it continues

Please look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#We have editing against consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A consensus reached without input from various keenly interested editors. When even the Australian Prime Minister calls the sport football - four years ago! - it is plain that the former name is moribund. --Pete (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This is simple. The consensus is clear. It hasn't changed. You know what it is. Your edits breach it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Downing Streetgate"

"You f****** pleb! Can't you see I'm armed with a bicycle?" (.... 'Ere mate I 'ad that David Mellor in the back of me cab last night. And 'e had nuffink smaller than a £2M note!") Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No asterisks on this page please! It's a fascinating case, isn't it? I apologise for edit-conflicting with you there; I think I eventually managed to restore your edits. --John (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, officer "I'm not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent asterisks on the spur of the moment." Asterix the Gaul (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was a somewhat "a plague on both your houses" close, wasn't it? --John (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a bicycle pump can come in very handy, even for a bloody judge. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And I suppose this is the modern equivalent. --John (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Stig Abell is quite an interesting character. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly is. His article could use some work. --John (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gonna strike all the big red words, From my little black book". Hmm, seems someone may have lied. But I'm sure £2M will come in 'andy.... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

• Featured content: Orbital Science: Now you're thinking with explosions

• In the media: A Russian alternative Wikipedia; Who's your grandfather?; ArtAndFeminism

• Recent research: Gender gap and skills gap; academic citations on the rise; European food cultures

• WikiProject report: Back with the military historians

• Traffic report: Big in Japan

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SamS71

Hi John,

Please could you try to delete both of my articles.

SamS71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamS71 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Which articles are those? --John (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this has already been done. Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. --John (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:My Generation sample.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:My Generation sample.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

How could that article, or indeed this encyclopedia, continue without a classic sample like this! A fine and worthy addition, in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I apologise to the bot and its operator for making them waste electrons correcting my stupidity. Thank you Martin, I am glad you agree this is a worthy addition to The Who. --John (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Iron–hydrogen alloy

You might like to look at my dispute with User:Plasmic Physics at Talk:Iron–hydrogen alloy. I have listed it at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Biscuittin (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Watched. Will make a comment there. --John (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And now we're forum shopping

Having failed to get anywhere at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) our persistent editor Pete/Skyring has now taken his argument to a global platform. Please see Talk:Football (word)#Football in Australia and Talk:Football (word)#Sourcing for Australia. The discussions are attracting no attention from anyone but me, but he is editing the article on the basis of what he claims on that Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that as I was pinged. Please don't panic; he is not doing anything wrong per se and is perfectly entitled to ask for sources. I may intervene if I see any of you losing it but for now consider that I am watching, even though I may not comment. Please do ping me again if there is any breach of the agreed restrictions. --John (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The demanding of sources is part of his game. He claims to have provided sources, but hasn't. It really is difficult to find sources that explicitly cover this matter. The reason is that the facts are obvious to all who know what they're talking about on the matter, and nobody bothers to write about it. Hence my reference to WP:BLUE. Pete is pushing a POV and is gaming the rules of Wikipedia. He is simply wrong in his claims of what the truth is here. I cannot separate his actions from his long term desire to simply prove me wrong, on anything. I have been a major impediment to his POV pushing in the past, on this and other issues. I AM assuming bad faith, perhaps unconscious bad faith, but still bad faith. Sorry about that, but I have seen too much of this editor to think otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw you make that point in article talk and I saw Pete's response. I think WP:V comes into play here. If there are no sources for a statement we cannot carry that statement. It might be beneficial now if both you and Pete could back off slightly and let others have their say. It can be intimidating to others to see two people battling it out like you and he are doing. Or find some sources. Finally if you have doubts about your ability to work productively with another editor I would certainly rather you mentioned it to me here as you have done than to take your dispute into article talk. I think you have both started to lose patience with one another and this is another reason to back off. As regards POV, please consider WP:MPOV; everybody has a POV and that is a known fact. It does not bar someone from participating, unless they do so in an unproductive manner. I counsel you both to consider whether you are approaching that point. Have you considered an RfC? --John (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can step back. You're right about the need for other voices. I've rarely seen an RfC work in situations as complex as the one in question. RfCs attract too many players with nothing more than opinions, and in this case, very loaded ones. I wish the topic wasn't such an emotive one. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Iron–hydrogen alloy

Could we please have some help at Talk:Iron–hydrogen alloy because we are just going round in circles. I have tried to list this for some sort of mediation but the instructions are so complicated that I don't understand them. Biscuittin (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Tamas has offered to help. Let's see what they can offer before I get involved. --John (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to do this but I'm afraid it has become necessary. You gave User:Plasmic Physics a formal warning on 11 August 2014 about editing articles without giving references. He has done it again. He edited Iron hydride on 30 November 2014, without giving a reference, so that it matched the opinion he has been expressing at Talk:Iron–hydrogen alloy. Could you please take appropriate action. Biscuittin (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Who

Thanks for getting the audio sorted out, I've spruced up Won't Get Fooled Again a bit today so it has some sourced content (always nice, I guess) and dropped the clip in as well. Could you check over what Mr Stephen's done on the main article? Changing one ISBN format and leaving the rest to not match is surely a violation of the FA criteria (which calls for consistent citations throughout), and being reverted with a summary of "you are wrong" isn't helpful and goes against the spirit of WP:BRD. I don't mind if I am wrong (it happens) but I certainly won't learn anything from back and forth reverts, and FAC is not really a good time for this to be going on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. There are rules for the placing of hyphens in ISBNs, see for example ISBN. If the article is unclear let me know and I'll try and explain them to you. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ISBN formatting is a mystery to me. I do know that Mr Stephen is one of the good guys like you and (I think) me, who spend a lot of time getting articles right, so I'd be inclined to believe him on this. --John (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a mystery to me too. Mr Stephen does a lot of work to fix up things like this, and about 99.99% of the time his edits are fine, but just occasionally I get confused. Stephen, what I think would help here is to write a page explaining ISBNs (or specifically the required changes) with worked examples, then link off that. User:Giraffedata/comprised of is an excellent way of doing that, all he needs then is an edit summary with that link and people understand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What a cool page! Thanks for linking it! --John (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I wrote something a while ago. I'll see if I can find it. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru

Hi there John, I am aware that you have taken action on QuackGuru's behaviour previously and I am requesting that you take a look at his latest activity at the e-cigarette article. The article was [recently fully protected for one week] to prevent editor feuding. Seemingly in attempt to WP:GAME the system, QuackGuru made over 20 separate edits to the article within hours of it becoming unprotected including this [vast edit]. Some of the edits show blatant disregard for WP:5P, for example:

• "Tobacco and e-cigarette companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.".

At almost the same time as the preceding partisan edit, QuackGuru [removed the article POV tag], justifying this action by saying that the article had "quietened down" in the last week because it was fully protected.

It would appear to me that QuackGuru knows that there is not likely to be consensus for such edits and they do not care. What's worse is that the quote above, aside from being a gross violation of WP:NPOV, is bordering on WP:OR or at the very least an ultra-partisan interpretation of an already partisan [source] stated in Wikipedia's voice.

It is impossible to discuss such things with QuackGuru, they simply state things such as ["You have not shown what is the issue with any of the text"], generally followed by copious amounts of filibustering. Going on their previous conduct record at this article, I think it would be best if QuackGuru was prevented from editing e-cigarette topics. There has been [recent activity at ANI] regarding QuackGuru that failed to reach a conclusion, but I think that this latest behaviour is sanctionable in its own right.
Levelledout (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Levelledout. I will have a word with the editor in question and see what needs to be done. --John (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit in question is sourced to this review article, published in Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world. Having read the article text in question (first full paragraph, page 1982), it seems like a relatively accurate summary of that paragraph. To say that summarizing material from a high quality source is a "blatant disregard for 5P" and is a "gross violation of NPOV" I think reflects poorly on the person accusing QuackGuru here. I should note that there has been a constant campaign by some editors to deprecate or remove high quality sources like this review article or information from the World Health Organization, FDA, etc. due to these sources publishing material negative about electronic cigarettes, this being an obvious example of this behavior. I'd hate to think that an editor in a content dispute with QG is WP:FORUMSHOPping here after getting no support get QG sanctioned at ANI. Yobol (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How can this be forum shopping if I am discussing completely separate events to the ones that were discussed at ANI? QuackGuru's actions are not restricted to that particular edit and the issue is misuse of a source, not the quality of the source itself.Levelledout (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If ANI can't sanction, I certainly think John would be overreaching in the extreme to do so. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Uniladmag

FYSA - I've unblocked Uniladmag per an unblock request on his page. As you used the "the username is the only reason for the block" template and he suggested an acceptable alternateive, I figured you'd be fine with it. If I'm mistaken and I've missed something, please fell free to undo my actions. Kuru (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Disregard; he went straight back to promotional editing and did not submit a username request. I've reverted myself. Kuru (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, we tried. Thank you for keeping me informed. --John (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit (again)

It looks as if there may soon be a sweep of the older FAs, so I thought I'd better get back to work on Quatermass. I've spent much of the evening chasing up dead links and replacing the IMDb links, but there's still some tidying up and checking to do. If you have the time and inclination would you mind just having a read through it now? I'm keen to avoid it having to go through an FAR if at all possible. Eric Corbett 00:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to have a look later today. --John (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had a couple more read throughs of this and it looks fine, for whatever my opinion is worth. I think it would certainly survive a FAR. The writing is ok and you have convinced me that the referencing (my main qualm) is ok. MoS compliance seems fine as well. --John (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Binary compounds of hydrogen

User: Plasmic Physics made a large number of changes to Binary compounds of hydrogen between 24 June 2014 and 5 December 2014. Most of the changes are to background colours in the tables. I don't know whether or not the changes are justified and I don't think any references have been given. Biscuittin (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at Talk:Binary compounds of hydrogen but not since 21 July 2014. Biscuittin (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have recorded my view. --John (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

• Op-ed: Who edits health-related content on Wikipedia and why?

• In the media: Embroidery and cheese

• Featured content: ABCD: Any Body Can Dance!

• Traffic report: Turkey and a movie

• WikiProject report: Today on the island

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

My ping @you

Can I assume you saw it and that your response has been made? Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a response should be made and this should include a longer ban for RTD's violation of 1RR. -A1candidate (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Let me have a look. --John (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Ayurveda under 1RR at the moment? I am a bit surprised about Roxy the Dog's behaviour: here he reverted the edits made by user Dsvyas, and here the same happens again. Well, the same seems to apply to Dsyvayas as well: [115] and [116]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John isn't a fool, Jay. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that Roxy. Be assured that I am watching. I am prepared to assume good faith regarding Dsvyas not having been aware of the restriction, which they now are. Roxy's two edits removed two different additions which were themselves added improperly so meh there I suppose, though I think you are sailing close to the wind there and certainly shouldn't make any further reverts. Do we need to look at full protecting the article, do we think? --John (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So Dsyvayas can revert me, leaving, and I quote John, "two different additions which were themselves added improperly", and I am threatened that I "certainly shouldn't make any further reverts." and have to sit here with the article in what you yourself agree is an improperly arrived at state. C'mon! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

RTD, what I suggest moving forward is that you not make any reverts in cases like this. Instead, when content is added or altered without clear and unambiguous consensus, report it to John or another administrator for action. (John, hope you don't mind my butting in.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not in the least, Boris, you said what I would have said. --John (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

But that is the sort of tell tale pettyness that I find so abhorrent that the pov pushers do all the time. There are a couple of examples here in this thread for goodness sake. You don't expect me to agf of people like that surely? I would hate to sink that low. I would much rather expect those imposing ad-hoc behavioural requirements over and above our norms actually enforce them. meh indeed. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

AGF goes both sides. You can't expect others to AGF when you assume bad faith most of the time. -A1candidate (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am reading your comments with great interest, Roxy the Dog. If you don't assume good faith on all the editors, maybe you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia? Remember WP:5P:

Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are 4,666,449 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss.

Haven't you got a warning for such use of language at Acupuncture? I don't think you are doing yourself a favour with these comments of yours. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I go by the reliable sources when editing articles, rather than making judgements about editors. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The hordes of "POV pushers", "quackupuncturists", and "homeopathasists" would probably disagree about you not making judgements about editors. -A1candidate (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how else to say it, but I go by the reliable sources when editing articles. Isn't that what is required? Regarding the hordes representing ignorance, there are so very many of them. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You go by "reliable" sources such as Quackwatch? It is a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog that has no impact factor and is not indexed in any scientific databases. It is, by all measures, a pseudoscientific source. -A1candidate (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikijaguar's unsolicited 2 cents-There is more to editing Wikipedia than just identifying and going by reliable sources as you say RTD. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and by its very nature requires you to work with other editors toward the goal of building (together) a great encyclopedia. I think the WP:5P and WP:AGF factors are not ones you should disregard. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

John, let me know that what you think about this message, if it is a kind of Wikipedia:ATTACK? User:Roxy the dog is attacking the valid closure on the talk(page) instead of raising his issue with the closure on Wikipedia:AN. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, it's a disappointing edit. I don't think Roxy the dog seriously disputes the close or they would indeed take it to AN. I don't think I'll block over this but I will say that this user is heading towards a topic ban. --John (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog was alerted about those sanctions like 12 months ago. It is good that he passed a whole year and avoided getting into any Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. But still I have alerted him for another 12 months. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That may not have been such a good idea. Let me have a look. --John (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself, son. --John (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

inquiry about what "ce" and "fmt" mean

Hi there, you made some edits (reverts) to this page here, with the edit summaries of "ce" and "fmt". I don't know what those mean. Could you clarify for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.109.112 (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Copy-edit" and "format". --John (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) Just to add a little on this, "copy-edit" means "I've changed the structure of prose to make it easier to read, but not changed the meaning" while "format" means "I've changed the presentation of the formatting without changing the overall meaning". I use these summaries as well, because if you do a lot of fixing up articles to try and improve the quality, making little copyedits and reviewing each one as you go seems to be par for the course, and individually documenting each one gets tiresome after a while. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970

John, FergusM1970 has now passed his time on the topic ban at electronic cigarettes that you imposed, but has been making unhelpful comments on the talk page such as this, accusing a group of editors of being part of a cabal and unhelpfully personalizing disputes. I was hoping you could talk to them to have them reconsider making such unhelpful comments again. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What's seriously unhelpful is the major WP:OWN issue you, Doc James, Zad and Quack have about that article. It's going to be a litany of scaremongering because that's what you've decided. I make a perfectly reasonable suggestion about describing the rift this issue has caused in the medical and public health communities and you immediately imply that I'm POV-pushing. Oh the irony.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think Yobol has been a very disruptive editor at multiple articles and he is currently canvassing for uninvolved editors at electronic cigarettes and shows lots of WP:IDHT behavior at talk pages. -A1candidate (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Phew. Right, where to begin? Fergus1970, that was an unhelpful remark to make. These things are best solved by avoiding personalising issues. Mentioning IDHT is another thing best avoided I think. If another editor seems not to have heard you, it may be that they disagree with you or there may be some other good reason that they have not responded. I may have further advice to give if and when I get time to look at this properly. --John (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I take your point but stand by what I said. There are serious OWN issues at that article. The group in question have even resisted adding more information about electronic cigarettes (i.e. what the article is supposed to be about) in favour of concentrating on the very speculative "health risks" that are proving so controversial.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That may be, but it is always unhelpful to discuss user conduct at an article talk page. If you are unhappy with how things are going I can come over and try to mediate there, but you should make your complaint here, not there. --John (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if you could do that. The complaints have been made there numerous times, but ignored.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Please don't make any personal comments on other editors or your ideas about their motivations there meantime. Just make dispassionate suggestions for article improvement and suggest sources which back them up, and bring any complaints about editors here. --John (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

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

---

John, I appreciate you're frustrated, and understandably so - but your latest comment to Andy wasn't exactly helpful. The discussion seems to be moving in a sensible direction; let's try not to derail it, eh? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose you have a point. I will strike it if you think it is unhelpful. But nobody should be under any illusion that they can bargain or blackmail us regarding BLP matters. --John (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

John, DO NOT persist in this. I resent your insinuation of "blackmail" in the strongest possible terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'd rather discuss this here than at the noticeboard. Why would you wish to make preconditions (if that's a nicer word for what you were trying to do) regarding the emerging consensus that a decent secondary source is better than a couple of crappy primary sources, on a BLP article? It seems obvious to me. Oh, and don't shout please, the neighbours may be sleeping. --John (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

John, can I suggest the protection on Nick Griffin is now lifted? I know one person wants me to specify exactly what changes I intended to make (which is briefly what I discussed on WP:BLPN that had a general agreement), but leaving an article locked for six days seems quite unorthodox and starting to look a bit punitive, particularly for editors who've had nothing to do with the conflict. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. As long as we're not going to have any preconditions required by Andy Dingley, or further reverts to restore poorly referenced material from either of the original two warriors. As somebody said at AN/I, it is more important to get a stable result than a quick result. Perhaps if we got a neutral admin to formally close the discussion at BLP/N? --John (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

John, lay off the repeated abuse. Read what I wrote, not what your ego is making up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

With the following observations though: 1) There is consensus here that the two direct quotes would be permissible in Nick Griffin under the sourcing rules. I would remove them from here under UNDUE, as they can be covered in the QT-specific article. 2) Those two quotes are permissible, and I would encourage them, in that QT-specific article. 3) When the QT-specific article is deleted or merged back to Nick Griffin, the two quotes should follow it back here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

is what I am talking about. Without commenting on your "ego" (though I am very interested in Freud), I don't think any involved editor has the right to declare a consensus in a discussion they have participated in, especially where it concerns a change in the wording of one of our most important policies. Neither can any one editor stipulate what will be merged in the event of some hypothetical future merge event. We would be better to go with the current consensus to just replace the two crappy primary sources with one decent secondary one. It is nice when common sense, policy, and consensus all align like this. Can you agree? --John (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually the consensus is that you were wrong to demand the two quotes were removed and wrong to protect the article as you're involved in the dispute you used your tools to prolong. But of course you've chosen to ignore those two results and focus instead on the third discussion which offers weak support to your demands. And don't think I haven't noticed the lies and general bullshit you've been writing about me - you haven't changed one bit. Parrot of Doom 18:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Demands, lies, bullshit. Thank you, that makes your position totally clear. You can't determine a consensus in a discussion you have participated in, especially if you don't understand fundamental principles of BLP. --John (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You're a nasty piece of work John. The only good thing about this debacle is that it's reminded people just what a piece of shit you are. Parrot of Doom 09:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry "losing" this has hurt your feelings so much. Try to learn from it. Adding tabloid sources to a BLP isn't a smart thing to do. --John (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought Ritchie's idea was a good one and said so several days ago. That doesn't change the fact that most people thought you were completely wrong (no matter how much you deny it) and it doesn't change the fact that you're still a smarmy little hypocrite and a bully. It's a shame (for you) that you don't possess the honesty to admit any of this. Leopards don't change their spots. Parrot of Doom 10:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad we agree that the solution adopted was a good one. As regards your critique of my character, I will treat it with all the seriousness it deserves. --John (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope that means you will take it seriously, because you ought to. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We know it's not your fault, John. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

John, do you have a plan for restoring the article to it's normal (unprotected) state? It seems to me there was consensus at BLPN one or both the quotes should go in, and it's not really legit to discount any reasonably established editor who disagrees with your interpretation of BLP. Also, since you can't just full protect the page in a content dispute as an ordinary admin action, you should be logging the action as required by WP:NEWBLPBAN. NE Ent 23:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi John, since it's not currently listed as a discretionary sanction I've removed the full protection (back down to semi). Hope you don't mind. I've alerted some people to the BLP discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks Callanecc, that seems fine. Let's hope nobody starts putting crap sources on it again. --John (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• John, I see this "Maybe I should just have blocked you and your co-offender. Maybe next time I will. " as an overt threat by an administrator to mis-use their block powers, as well as already having mis-used their page locking powers, to strong-arm a content dispute that they're already involved in and where the other contributors are already behaving appropriately, per the thread at BLP/N. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Do you really? Gosh. Takes all sorts. --John (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

John, I have to say that this is not the first example I've seen recently of borderline (or even over the borderline) problematic behavior by you in an administrative capacity. You might want to reflect a bit more on your words and actions. You're a good admin so there's no need for these things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you? That's a shame. I have always reflected on my words and actions, thanks very much. Are you a fan of using tabloid sources to publish negative material on living people? If you are (and this isn't just aimed at you, Short) you may feel absolutely free to leave and start a new project. You could call it Tabloidopedia, perhaps. As long as we have a BLP policy and I have an admin bit I will use the one to enforce the other. If you don't like that, tough titty. If you have any serious criticisms of any specific action I have taken, you may continue to feel welcome to mention specifically what it is you think I have done wrong, and which policy or guideline you think it breaches. Joining in with some vague hand-waving on a thread where a tabloid fan has called me "a nasty piece of work", "a piece of shit", a "smarmy little hypocrite" and a "bully" doesn't fill me with a good impression of your judgement. No offence. --John (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you need good respectable Teutonic sources like Der Speigl. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Lashing out ("if you don't like that, tough titty" and more) at someone attempting to bring up good-faith concerns does not strike me as modeling the kind of behavior that you demand from others. I would only like to say that I attempted to do this because you are a good admin who in my view has wobbled a bit. If I thought you were a bad admin, I'd just stay the hell away to avoid the risk of a retaliatory block and figure you deserved whatever came. I apologize for any offense and will not bring any concerns to your talk page in future. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't "bring up good-faith concerns", you made a vague remark with no content. What was I supposed to do with that? I'll repeat the comment: If you have any serious criticisms of any specific action I have taken, you may continue to feel welcome to mention specifically what it is you think I have done wrong, and which policy or guideline you think it breaches but if this is your communication style, vague innuendo followed by pretended offence, you are certainly also welcome to stay away. --John (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2014 (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.

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to this but I appreciate being asked. --John (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I award you this barnstar as you are already working for so many years and trying to make things better. I have been watching your talk(page) for a while, it is obvious that you serve as an example. Hope to learn a lot from you! Bladesmulti (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind of you. --John (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

• Op-ed: It's GLAM up North!

• In the media: Wikipedia is "a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess"

• Traffic report: Dead Black Men and Science Fiction

• Featured content: Honour him, love and obey? Good idea with military leaders.

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's really useful. --John (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a case of edit warring?

Hi John, as an experienced administrator I would like to ask your opinion about an interaction I am having with Ronz on the Kefir page. Please note I am not actually lobbying you for a specific intervention here, but would like to know if I am correct in thinking that this user's behavior is inappropriate with respect to possible edit warring and uncivil comments (at least IMO). First diff here [117] is a reversion of this diff I made yesterday [118]. My reversion prompted a discussion at the Kefir talk page (seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kefir#Link_to_keyif_in_a_reliable_etymological_source.3F), which has not ended and did not create consensus for this removal (the consensus reached was that better dictionary sources such as American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, Merriam's, etc. are preferable to the sources Ronz previously preferred such as Memidex and Wiktionary (now removed as he states on the talk page).

However, in that first diff Ronz removed well-sourced information about the possible etymological link of Kefir to the Turkish word "Keyif" from various peer-reviewed academic sources (I have even newer reviews supporting this position from this year) and has failed to adequately explain his reason for removing these sources (and I see no consensus for such a change). Additionally, in that same first diff, I believe his edit summary violates WP:CIVIL as it is clearly a negative comment targeted at me (which I don't appreciate since we are in the middle of a conversation on the talk page). Would you agree that this constitutes edit warring (despite only being one reversion without consensus) and that the edit summary was uncalled for and uncivil? How do you think I should proceed? Thank you in advance for your comments John. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I have been away. That does sound rude. Let me have a proper look at this. --John (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize for the delay. I agree that Ronz's response was rude and I've personally decided to let the issue go (but I would appreciate you still taking a look since this may be indicative of a pattern of behavior on the Ronz's part) in order to prevent the disagreement from escalating and because I have started to grow weary/annoyed and I don't particularly like feeling that way. Thanks John :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts about this issue John? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I read the discussion and looked at the edit summaries. I agree with you that the first summary was unnecessarily rude. I don't see evidence that this is part of a pattern though. If you think otherwise it would be interesting to see. --John (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments John. Do you think his actions constituted edit warring? We certainly didn't get into 3RR territory, but as you know, it isn't necessary to do so for it to be considered edit warring. With respect to whether this is a pattern of behavior, I will do a little investigating and if I find anything of interest, I will be sure to present you with diffs as evidence. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another act of rude behavior (by a different editor with whom you are familiar) that might interest you [119]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru again

John, since you seem to be the administrator who deals with QuackGuru on a regular basis, I wanted to ask what I should do about disruptive edits he has been making lately. This is an example where, in one edit, he singlehandedly removed some reviews (only after he tagged them as unreliable, a sneaky way to make their removal look justifiable) then snuck in an old edit (at the end) which he knew I found highly objectionable because he twisted the first line of the abstract, essentially the premise, making it appear as though it was a conclusion from the review. Here is a previous attempt to make a similar edit. And here is the full text of the review where you can see the first line of the abstract. I caught him and brought this up on the talk page showing that he was misleading the reader by quoting a premise as a conclusion. He even had the audacity to say on the talk page he wasn't quoting from the abstract, then when I copied the abstract, word-for-word just to show what he was doing, he didn't respond to the point, but instead accused me of committing a copyright violation! It goes on and on, and if you're interested in any more of it, it's well documented on the acupuncture talk page and in the edit history. The reason I'm coming to you is that I know you understand his unique techniques for disruption. For the past few months, I have noticed how sneaky his disruptive edits are. He makes them so complicated that they're undetectable simply because it gives any administrator a headache to understand what he is doing. I'm convinced he would have been banned a long time ago if he wasn't so good at concealing his bad behavior behind a convoluted editing maze, then hiding every instance where another editor catches the violations and addresses them on QuackGuru's talk page. If he didn't delete pretty much everything on his talk page, other admins would easily see him the long pattern of similar behavior and not be so quick to give him the benefit of the doubt. Any admin would probably have to spend 2 hours going through one series of his edits just to understand what he's doing. The thing is, any editor who makes a sound edit that conflicts with QG's POV doesn't just get reverted. That would be easy disruption to detect. What he does is so much more insidious, he twists words and does whatever he can to "neutralize" the citation, knowing nobody is going to go back and read the full text, and if they did he could always play dumb. Anyway, I know you're familiar with his behavior which is why I'm coming to you. Do you have any advice on how I should proceed with QuackGuru? His ownership issues, combative battleground behavior and covert disruptive tactics are out of control. LesVegas (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As an observer uninvolved in editing the acupuncture page (aside from some past history of minor word choices, grammar, etc.), I have to agree that Quackguru has had a very long track history of troublesome behavior and I have to wonder why he or she has been allowed to proceed in such a manner for so long. I doubt most other Wikipedia editors would have been given as many chances as Quackguru and avoided permanent blocking with so many repeat offenses. That's just my 2 cents. I have had unpleasant interactions with Quackguru in the past as well (although only a couple), but it does feel like Quackguru has received special treatment and that's inappropriate, especially when QG's behavior seems to be disruptive to numerous editors (good and bad ones alike). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Addendum-To be a bit more balanced in my assessment of QG, I won't say that QG doesn't have his or her moments (he or she certainly does some good work on important articles), but in my opinion this does not excuse this user's prolonged pattern of disruptive conduct. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

According to User Brangifer, however (emphasis added):

The same actions can be interpreted very differently, and rightly so, so we don't have "the same rules for all editors." Contrary to your statement above ("... all the editors must be treated equally, with same rights and under the same rules."), we don't do that.

I wonder the same. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is awful news. I really thought QG was trying to clean up his act. We may now need to look at a topic ban. Is it just acupuncture that is the problem or is it wider than that? --John (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's awful news that you take reports like this at face value: I note that every quote that QG is accused of problematically removing was problematic in itself. How can a quote from a source about the effectiveness of acupuncture for headaches leave out a sentence in the source like "However, in studies that compared actual acupuncture with simulated acupuncture, researchers found that the differences between the two treatments may have been due to chance."? The later discussion of fascial connections is being used to provide a false sense of secure underpinning for acupuncture as well, and is certainly providing undue weight for a dubious conclusion. This isn't a QG issue: it's an issue of TCM proponents attempting to distort the acupuncture article again. As usual, the best solution is to block the group of editors that are attempting to distort the article, and then see if QG's behaviour will improve. QG is an editor with some behavioural problems that is attempting to improve the encyclopedia. LesVegas is an editor that is attempting to damage the encyclopedia, and knows that scrupulously correct behaviour combined with subtle distortion of sources will help him prevail.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Kww to QuackGuru[120]:

You know that of any of the admins on this site, I'm one of the most sympathetic to your cause. I can also tell you that you are being your own worst enemy again. Bringing three people that you are in a conflict with to ANI and SPI simultaneously without some very good evidence connecting the three accounts looks more like a temper tantrum than a serious effort to use our noticeboards properly.

Can I ask you to talk with me before you bring things like this to noticeboards? I can help you see where you are being unconvincing and where you are making leaps of faith. The woowoo articles have always attracted problematic editors, so no single report is going to fix the world. You can bring reports so badly that no one listens and nothing gets fixed, though, and that seems to be the path you are going down.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

...or maybe Kww, you can just back off? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Feel free to present your evidence for "TCM proponents attempting to distort the acupuncture article again"; other than showing that you are declaring for a "side" here, your present statement doesn't help me much. Here's a clue; QG ought to know very well by now that making these bold edits in defence of what he thinks the consensus is or ought to be, has become problematic. Make your arguments in article talk, refer to sources, and avoid imputing bad motives to others. I think this whole area needs a bit of a sweep to remove those who are unable to behave properly. I don't see any other way forwards, do you? --John (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Discussions at Talk:Acupuncture go nowhere because there are not very many good faith editors to deal with: we are left people like LesVegas and Jayaguru-Shishya. I certainly think there's a way forward, and blocking or topic-banning QG is not it. Topic-banning LesVegas and Jayaguru-Shishya would be far less damaging. I'm sorry that you see this as an issue of sides and that you refuse to see your obligations under the pseudoscience arbitration clearly: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus". Do you seriously doubt that LesVegas, Jayaguru-Shishya, A1Candidate, and all the other editors that flock to your talk page for comfort and support are cherry-picking sources in such a way as to bend our articles away from mainstream scientific consensus and towards a pro-TCM/pro-alternative-medicine POV? That they obstruct and filibuster every discussion that attempts to bring related articles back into line?—Kww(talk) 22:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it pretty questionable from an involved admin to label someone as "non-good faith editor" to another admin. Especially since you didn't even provide any diff which would support this claim of yours. I am sorry Kww, but I see your actions not so convincing for someone who is entitled to work as an administrator. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I do not see this as a matter of sides, but it is becoming apparent that you do from your posts here. I am very well aware of the pseudoscience arbcom, and I also try to observe WP:AGF and see those who maintain the WP:BATTLE as the real problem. Are you part of the problem here, or part of the solution? I am beginning to wonder. The real solution is to involve more neutral editors, and to clip the wings of those who are unable to behave properly. It would be a real shame to lose QG, or any good-faith contributors, but those of us who wish to solve the problem will nevertheless have to accept this fact. Make your arguments in article talk, refer to sources, and avoid imputing bad motives to others. See what you can do to help. --John (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Kww, please give the exact diffs. Please explain what's the exact problem. Don't just wonder on the level of general accusations without any basis. I remember what my professor told us once: "Substance, substance, substance!" Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Kww, listen, I know you don't like my point-of-view, and you do like QuackGuru's. But to say that I am attempting to damage the encyclopedia is just wrong. I have truly tried my very best from the outset to only improve the encyclopedia as best as I can see to do so, and only edit within the rules. I know you don't agree with some of my points of view, but I challenge you to find any substantiation that I have been disruptive or have vandalized or have any behavioral issues whatsoever. If you can find one instance, one edit, that is as bad as what QuackGuru does on a near-constant basis, or even like he did here and both you and John agree that I am a problem and that any of my edits rival QG's many, then I will request that John topic ban both myself and QuackGuru. I won't protest it at all: if a respected and uninvolved admin truly believes I am as much of a danger to this topic area as QG is, or any of the other problematic editors there, who am I to argue? I have tried editing to the best of my ability and don't think I have ever crossed the line like QG, but if I have, I invite whatever punishment John sees fit. LesVegas (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see: an inconclusive study in a dubious journal, where the strongest conclusion is that the evidence "supports" that fascias "may be" the substrate of a representation? The only issue I have with QG's edit is that he didn't delete the reference entirely as being without merit. He's trying to leave material in to satisfy people, and directly quoted the study in question with his changes.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the joy that comes from trying to engage these editors on Talk:Acupuncture, John: an infinite cycle of defense for removing material from the lead when that material denigrates acupuncture, as well as a continual cycle of defense for any study, no matter how poor the source, that makes acupuncture look to have a stronger foundation. I'm sorry that you see me as part of the problem, but that feeling is certainly mutual. Does QG make rapid edits that don't take LesVegas's, Jayaguru-Shiya, and A1Candidate's POV into account? Certainly he does, and that's because he really isn't supposed to take their view into account. No one else gets to get in there and edit because of the flare-ups QG provokes. That's a problem. But the other problem is the near certainty that any other editor will also wind up provoking reverts from the pro-altmed/pro-TCM editors, and will wind up in exactly the same precarious position. Keeping the article from drifting that way is a tireless and thankless task. Admins that actually monitor the content of the edits wind up painted as "involved" and paralyzed. Unfortunately, that leaves you free to block QG and completely uninclined to block the editors that are the root of the problem, because you don't see promoting pseudoscience as a behavioural problem as long as it is done by well-behaved editors that don't blatantly lie about the content of their sources, while you do see ignoring such editors as a problem. That then encourages them to push harder, which causes QG to react even more badly, and is ultimately bad for us all.

The only reason the "battle" persists is because the warriors are allowed to continue. Don't you think it's a bit strange that your talk page is full of adherents to TCM, Ayurveda, acupuncture, and similar fringe topics? Don't you think it's because they see you as a tool for their cause?—Kww(talk) 02:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Kww, the journal meets all of MEDRS requirements as far as I can tell. From the way I understand the policies, if the citation was removed as you say QG should've done, that would also be disruptive behavior. But, for the sake of my point, I'm glad that you clearly see that source essentially said that "the evidence 'supports' that fascia 'may be' what the Chinese were talking about in relationship to meridians." Because that's exactly what my edit stated! I cited what the source said, following the rules as I understand them to be. Then QuackGuru removed it, claiming OR, and inserted this deception, that it has "not been resolved" Kww, do you think this is okay? And for the record, I think I first noticed John as a good administrator when he got onto a couple of editors, Roxy the Dog and Dominus Vobisdu, who were calling another editor a quackupuncturist and being grossly uncivil. As I'm sure you know, plenty of other admins frequent that talk page, but John was the only one who did something about it. He reprimanded and punished those who were breaking the rules, instead of turning a blind eye to it in the name of whatever POV some here believe is sacrosanct. I do not believe John shares any of my views on acupuncture, but I do believe he shares my belief that editors can have any viewpoint and can edit the encyclopedia with enthusiasm, just as long as these editors don't violate Wikipedia's rules. I can't speak for everybody else, but that's why I am coming to him. LesVegas (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Kww:

Does QG make rapid edits that don't take LesVegas's, Jayaguru-Shiya, and A1Candidate's POV into account?

Dear Kww, what's my POV? Please explain. I am pretty sure we all would like to hear this. I have repeatedly emphasized that what we are interested in are reliable sources. I have repeatedly told, that please follow MEDRS, and there will be no problem. Is there something you disagree with it? Please Kww, do explain us in full extent. This is not a rhetorical question. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Above, a comment by John includes "those who maintain the WP:BATTLE as the real problem". That comment overlooks the fundamental issue, namely that fringe topics always attract more enthusiasts than neutral editors. Naturally there will be "lack of consensus" because most editors give up trying to defend such articles, and the talk page becomes a contest between fans of the topic and fans of the encyclopedia. A single admin should not take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury, and executioner in fringe areas, and, assuming there is no exceptional outburst, a general editor should not be sanctioned without a discussion at WP:ANI or WP:AE. Any investigation of contributors should include LesVegas (talk · contribs) who focuses on acupuncture (one third of all edits since starting last July) and who claims that NPOV forbids stating that TCM is largely pseudoscience, apparently on the basis that science should be balanced with the views of devotees. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How very interesting for you to share your views with me like this. Everybody thinks they are neutral of course. I was amused by the idea of a "general editor"; is this a rank? --John (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

By "general editor" I mean one who is not focused on using Wikipedia to push a point of view—a general editor has a general interest in a range of topics. People should not be using this talk page as a substitute for WP:AE in relation to WP:ARBPS matters. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm so happy that you find this discussion amusing, John. Tell me: when you gauge consensus in a discussion, do you count the number of people involved, or do you weigh each argument in accordance with Wikipedia policies?—Kww(talk) 14:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What I firstly want to say is I feel this discussion was actually censored by User:QuackGuru. The reason made me thought like this is from his talk page edition [121]. Now his talk page is like this [122]. It seems right after the User:LesVegas opening this discussion here, QuackGuru started to collect something to accuse you, User:John. QuackGuru collected these problem to accuse you just 20 hours after LesVegas. I guess he was waiting for you to report him. While you report him, he will accuse you in the same time with the evidences he collected. I guess my comments here was also censored. Hence, I guess he may change his talk page later. Then I guess I need to introduce myself. Previously I never involved any debate about the topic about Acupuncture but this week I really have a debate related it. Hence, I will not say I am an User who uninvolved. Maybe it is really bad for me to censor User QG's edition but during the debate I feel I was censored by him which made me feel really uncomfortable. The way I found your page is from QG's talk page. He wrote lots about you made me easy to find you. Before this, I did not involve any discussion with you. My debate with him is in Talk:Acupuncture#Old reference#Weight violation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#NCCAM as a MEDRS?. My debate with him is I word-for-word cited some sentences from NCCAM but he said it was MEDRS violation. It made me really confused because NCCAM is part of National Institutes of Health while MEDRS [MEDRS]claimed source from NIH is compliant. However, this debate is unrelated this topic. I just introduce myself.

I loosely checked something. At first, for article Acupuncture, based on the page statistic [123], Based on [124], User:QuackGuru is top the editor in this article who made more 1000 editions while User:LesVegas only made 27 editions which is even not in top 10. To say someone out of top 10 is more enthusiasts than the top 1 editor sounds really unconceivable for me. Then the page statistic for Acupuncture shows article Acupuncture ranks 7497 out of 4,671,886 articles in English wiki.Based on this figure, it is really hard to say it is a fringe topic. It seems User:QuackGuru focused on alternative medicine topic. I check the statistic page of many alternative medicine Chiropractic, talk:Chiropractic,German acupuncture trials TCM,Traditional African medicine Chiropractic controversy and criticism, User:QuackGuru is the top 2 editor in all of these page and mostly is the top 1. I guess he will start to edit Ayurveda soon. The only exception is article Electronic cigarette which QG is the top 1 editor. In this article, it seems he has a huge conflict with User:AlbinoFerret. comments from Miracle dream 20:09, 17 December 2014‎

QG is a very, um, enthusiastic, editor in the field of pseudoscience, and in most cases that I have ever been aware of he has been taking actions in accord with our best practices as per policies and guidelines, even though at times his means of personal expression and presentation leave a lot to be desired. And it is unfortunate that some of our other leading editors in the field of pseudoscience have been occupied by professional academic concerns of late. What we really need for this topic, and, honestly, many or most of the pages relating to pseudoscience, is administrators or other senior editors competent enough to know the nature of the published terrain in the field and willing to take action when such is appropriate. Unfortunately, cloning debunkers doesn't seem within the WMF budget anytime soon. I don't know who pushed first in this particular instance, but I have a feeling that maybe the best way to proceed might be ArbCom. Unfortunately. They don't always get everything right according to the content, as their focus is by definition on behavior, but it might be that the only way to really "resolve" this content is to seek some sort of AE action of some sort. But if that were to happen, it would be best if someone uninvolved in the topic or prior discussion were to review the situation to present an unbiased report to AE or ArbCom. Unfortunately, I know that I myself am not qualified to do that. My field is more history and astronomy, not medicine. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that I have seen all these messages and find them very interesting. Miracle dream, I did notice what User:QuackGuru was doing. Up to a point it is up to them what they do with their user space and presumably QG is going to do something with this. Interestingly, if you look in the history QG blanks some very good advice from another administrator regarding this matter. I'd note that QG has not been fully accurate or diligent in some of the "evidence" that they have posted there, and I'll be happy to enlarge on that if necessary. Johnuniq, thank you for that. Of course everyone has the right to examine another editor's contributions and gauge how wide or narrow their interests in the project are. On the other hand, having a narrow interest isn't prohibited and I still believe AGF, while not a suicide pact, has to apply first and foremost, along with our other core values. (Of course, by this logic, wouldn't QG qualify, per Miracle dream's comments, as just the sort of editor you are talking about?) User:John Carter, thank you too for your measured contribution. Unfortunately I will have even less time to give to these matters in the next week or so, due to matters relating to real life, children and Christmas. I will be checking my messages and making the occasional comment for the next week or so. I still welcome this conversation taking place here, and I assure everyone that this will all be sorted out one way or the other in the next month or so. There is no deadline. I wish everyone here an early compliments of the season. --John (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Help!

John, I'm engaged in discussion with Miesianiacal at Talk:Governor-General of Australia and Talk:Head of state. We're running into difficulties. Is there some handy counselling or mediation service available? I don't want him to feel uncomfortable or bullied, and if my experience with HiLo48 is any guide, I'm probably inadvertently doing something to make things worse. I'd like to stay on track and within wikipolicy, but I'm about as emotionally intelligent as a block of Lego and someone with wider eyes might help things. --Pete (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If I may, John. It's my recommendation that Skyring stay away from articles/discussions that relate to or concern the Australian head of state dispute. It's never a good idea to repeatedly push the same thing on Wikipedia, no matter what the motive is. The project frowns on such behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Good Day has a good idea here, Pete. For now, can you step back from this? --John (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I'll leave it for now, and I'll trust GoodDay and Mies to do likewise. We may leave the matter for comment by other editors. However, this is not the central thrust of my concern, which is to find ways for us to work usefully together on areas of joint interest. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No Skyring. You're the problem here. You must stay away. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Regretfully, John. Skyring won't or can't let go, unconditionally :( GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nor can you, GoodDay. Use your head - trying to win a Wikipedia battle by forcing anybody with an opposing view out of the discussion is against the spirit of consensus we embrace here. You "win" by persuading others, through facts and discussion. --Pete (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You've asked John for help & he's agreed with my advice. However, your apparent inability to accept that advice unconditionally, speaks volumes. We can't help you, if you refuse to help yourself :( GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

PS- Though I disagree with the way HiLo48 handled himself, when he had his blowout, I understand his frustrations with you. Forgive, but there's just something annoying about you, Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, GoodDay. I'd like to be less annoying. I don't want to annoy people to the point where they feel they cannot participate in discussion, or they feel they are being bullied. I'm looking for suggestions.

I guess I could tell those I disagree with not to participate in discussion any more, but they might get upset, so that wouldn't be constructive. --Pete (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably, I believe you're heading towards a topic-ban or worst. Being currently involved in (atleast) seven disputes (Head of State, Governor-General of Australia, Order of precedence, Nuclear power phase-out, 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, Barassi line & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)), isn't promising. Please remember, that I tried to help you. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, John. If I appear to be loosing my temper with Skyring, it's because I am. Best, I walk away. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

L'enfer, c'est les autres, n'est-ce pas? When good people disagree, it is always painful for others. Try to back off and accept your differences for a few days, would be my advice. --John (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Improve Article

Hi! I am new to wikipedia and would like to contribute. How do I improve the article - Siddharth Shetty? It would be great if you could make the changes, so that I may understand what exactly is required. I have tried to edit/improve it multiple times but they keep flagging the article.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohansoodH22 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you were asking here, but I made some minor adjustments. --John (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Jordanhill School

Hi, you seem to have removed a large part of the Jordanhill School article but I can't see any reasons listed for your actions. For example, the section about the schools drama history dating back to 1945 has been completely wiped. Evening Times (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:V. --John (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The information came from a document on the schools official site which outlined its history. I would have said that was a valid source for that information. Document can be found here http://www.jordanhill.glasgow.sch.uk/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/2011/a_history_of_jordanhill_school_1920-1995.pdf Evening Times (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are not the best. Is there a better source for this? --John (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

• Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee election results

• Featured content: Tripping hither, tripping thither, Nobody knows why or whither; We must dance and we must sing, Round about our fairy ring!

• In the media: Wikipedia's year in review video; Checking in with Wikipedia's founders

• Traffic report: A December Lull

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wall of Shame activities

Greetings John! I am sorry to find out that you've been targeted at user QuackGuru's Talk Page. I think he removing even his signature[125] indicates quite clearly that he never even intended his post as something to be discussed as his Talk Page. Moreover, it highly resembles as a piece of "wall of shame" activity described by WP:HUSH:

User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues.

I read the statements he made, and I have quite a differing view with most of them. For example, the issues he is bringing up with respect to his Talk Page, there is hardly any disagreement about his disruptive activities. I got the impression that he'd be quite desperate to label you as "involved admin" since he feels uncomfortable that someone has paid attention to his behaviour here at Wikipedia.

Anyway, I have brought his "wall of shame" activities to your attention even earlier (as well as Kww), and I I feel sad seeing that he is returning to his old ways even despite of everything.

My editing time during the Christmas season is very limited, but I'd like to give you my best wishes for the upcoming Christmas holidays! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya I appreciate your comment. I think I talked about this a couple of items up. Try not to worry about this, and enjoy your holidays too. --John (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. You too. --John (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Holidays

I will be travelling from tomorrow until early January. I will check in occasionally and may make a few edits if the opportunity arises, but I will be mostly away for a couple of weeks. Very best regards to all who have made 2014 such a pleasant year. --John (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} ... wishes you and yours:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace!

Thank you, same to you! --John (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

• From the editor: Looking for new editors-in-chief

• In the media: Wales on GamerGate

• Featured content: Still quoting Iolanthe, apparently.

• WikiProject report: Microsoft does The Signpost

• Traffic report: North Korea is not pleased

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello John, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Nollaig

	Nollaig shona duit
	Best christmas and new year. Another year down, and so much more to write. Thanks for all your contribuitions and being part of the community. Hope January is at least resonabally tolerable for you. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, and the same to you. --John (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		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 15:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ealdgyth, and the same to you. --John (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

....

And this is why I'm not editing as much... see William the Conqueror where I've just been accused of "ownership" and all the usual stuff (and had everything I reverted re-added back... including a bunch of changes that are not done at all... bolding the King William I, easter egg links, lots of html markup, etc. I'm so freaking sick of this sort of thing... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Ealdgyth. I have started a conversation in article talk. Even though my time is very limited over the next week or so I will do anything I can to help. --John (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi John! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the advantage to me of doing that? --John (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Creating a global account will secure your name across wiki so that local accounts on other wikis will not clash with yours anymore. In order to provide technical improvements for users active on several wikis, all accounts will be unified by the Wikimedia Foundation. As this will happen in a still unknown way somehow, I recommend you to unify your account on your own instead of leaving that to the Wikimedia Foundation. Additionally, it's quite simple to doing that by just submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount. If you were using accounts with a different name on other wikis, please let me know. Once the new account merge tool will be released in (probably late) January 2015, stewards can merge two or more global accounts. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How will the fact that my user name has been taken on several other Wikipedias be handled? --John (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you know the answer to that as well as I do, which is that it probably won't. Even now I have to log in to Commons using my old Malleus user name, and my current user name had to be usurped as it had been registered on other WPs. Your only hope is if all the other Johns are inactive, and you can usurp their accounts. Eric Corbett 17:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I reckon you're right Eric. I have provided my password so that my (one) named account here on .en can be unified with itself. I still don't quite see what this is about but I trust DerHexer, I think. Eric, do me a favour will you? I am stuck in the land of weak fizzy lager for New Year; could you possibly drink one large pint of bitter for me tomorrow? I leave the type up to you. --John (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do you that favour John. Eric Corbett 18:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. --John (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If you were anywhere near us, we'd offer you a home-brewed ale... but ... (and weirdly enough, us Yanks do import real brews...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, that is really appreciated. I'd love to have a beer with you. We are in upstate New Jersey at the moment and it is unlikely we will be travelling beyond the hotel where we are staying. Maybe next time. --John (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't blame you. It's -4 C here, feels like -11. Going to get down to -11 (feels like -17 with the wind) tonight. I don't blame you for not wanting to venture into the frozen Midwest. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Most clashing accounts will be usurped according to m:Usurpation policy, I'm about to do that for your account. The remaining accounts with visible non-vandal edits will be notified to choose a fresh username so that you will get a complete global account and they too. By April 2015, all accounts will be global ones. A script will rename remaining accounts under a scheme like Account~dewiki. They will still be able to login as Account but asked for requesting a new username (if they refuse from using Account~dewiki). By then, global accounts like Eric Corbett and Malleus will be easily mergeable by stewards. Just ping me or one of my fellows. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that is really cool. I think I am still User:Guinnog at several projects. Can that also be handled? --John (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The beer round here is of the required quality, and my son runs a pub, but I'm not sure if I'll indulge John or not. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Although I've usurped most local accounts, a couple of them will remain until SUL finalization is completed (by about April 2015). Afterwards, I can merge your accounts. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds great. Thanks again. Off-hand I have accounts at .fr, .de Commons and possibly Wikiquote. --John (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Help...

Dealing with an editor who just does not seem to get it. Here is the information - but the problems are detailed on the talk page. Reading the editor's talk page, it appears that this is not a new issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've commented in talk and reverted. --John (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always good if you tell me I'm off the deep end too - if I'm in the wrong, let me know rather than blindly support. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I would, don't you worry. --John (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)