User talk:John B123/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Thank you for your kind teaching

Dear JohnB123 Thank you for your kind teaching.I am not good at Wikipedia.I need your help.I look forward to your kind cooperation.Thank youBablos939 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bablos939: Hi, glad to be of help. This new article may be of interest to you: Sex trafficking in China. --John B123 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear JohnB123 , HI, Thank you for introducing me.Although I am not good enough, I will try my best.Thank you.Bablos939 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation question

Hi... I noticed that you expand bare references on your edit and it seems you are familiar with citation on wikipedia. I need your suggestion, some editor seems to keep reverting edit on citation. So, once fully cited reference as per Wikipedia:Citation templates becomes bare reference again. Is there any wikipedia policy/guidelines on that matters? Thanks. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: Hi, what article is that? --John B123 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

it's List of active aircraft of the Turkish Air Force, but then again when I look it up.. it seems an edit war is ongoing there and citation is part of what's keep reverted. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: That happens sometimes, not a lot you can do about it really. I'll keep my eye on the page. --John B123 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm DGG. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Will Hutchins (painter), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: Can I ask why? --John B123 (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

because I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and the message gets sent automatically. I immediately saw my error, and marked it reviewed again. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: No problem, I've done the same myself. --John B123 (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello J. Thanks for fixing those links. I have been working to correct those (for one thing the leave a nice red message in the ref section) but there were over thirty articles in the "bare url fixing category" this morning and I was trying to finish them before heading to the doctors office. Things went okay there. My apologies for the sloppiness and thanks correcting them. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hi. No problem, glad it went ok at the doctors. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Best wishes to you and yours in these crazy times. MarnetteD|Talk 20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Unreview

Hi John, Am I missing something for the pages you unreviewed? Hurura and May Ayni are all OK for copyvio, have plenty of references and seem to tick the box for notability. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren: Hi. Apologies for that, I thought I was marking them as reviewed, not unreviewing them. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for helping put with the reviewing process. Cheers Hughesdarren (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Dual UK and US publications

Hello John. Thank you so much for your fixes on Jozef Retinger. I admit I am a slothful student of code (time of life), and am often defeated by details like how to express that a publication came out one year in UK with publisher A and the following year in US with publisher B. If you have time, please let me know and I'll try to remember. Kind regards in these trying times, --Po Mieczu (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Po Mieczu: Hi. There is a parameter "orig-year" that can be used for the first publication. This is a free text field. So for example for: "How To Confuse Wikipedians With Cite Templates", published by "Publisher A" in London in 2015 and "Publisher B" in New York in 2016, the code would be:

{{cite book|title=How To Confuse Wikipedians With Cite Templates |year=2016 |publisher=Publisher B |publication-place=New York|orig-year=First published by Publisher A, London, 2015}}

Which gives:

How To Confuse Wikipedians With Cite Templates. New York: Publisher B. 2016 [First published by Publisher A, London, 2015].

Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Elegant, thank you! I'll give it a go after walking the dog. Regards, --Po Mieczu (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the pages on LGBTQ animation

So, I just finished adding sources to all the entries on the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s, List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s, List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s, and List of animated series with LGBT characters pages. Of course, even with the sources, they are probably still too long. My thinking was that some entries of Japanese anime could be eliminated on the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s pages, as many of those pages have many more anime shows than those created in Canada, U.S., etc. But, you may have other thoughts. In any case, any improvement to those pages would be welcome.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Historyday01: Hi. You've certainly worked hard on the articles and they are looking good. List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s are certainly WP:TOOBIG and would benefit from splitting. For the sake of consistency, I would also split List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s although it's not as big as the other two. As the articles are split into 5 year periods within the articles, splitting into 5 year period articles would be the easiest way of doing it, although the article titles would start to get a bit cumbersome. Splitting off the Japanese anime entries is another approach, but the 2010s anime may still be too big and need further subdividing leading to inconsistencies of time periods of the articles. A couple of minor points:

• Some of the notes could be pruned. (Sanae Nagatsuki in List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s#Lesbian characters for example). Ideally the notes should only be a sentence long, or two at the most.
• In List of animated series with LGBT characters, the sections 1990s, 2000s & 2010s need to have some content not just the main article link. With slight modification, the lead sections of the relevant individual article could be copied across into these sections.

I'm busy with other things at the moment but am happy to help out once I have a bit of time. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I mean, perhaps some of those could be split. I would say splitting off Japanese anime could be one approach, but I would imagine that the articles would still be too long, as there are a LOT of anime titles. Splitting it into 2010-14 and 2015-2019 would be relatively easy as it is already split in that way. I could add into the head section into the main article link, that's a good idea.Historyday01 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

KDB Darussalam

Thanks for the help on cleaning up the page :) -YCChin DeltaSquad833 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaSquad833: No problem --John B123 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you for arranging for this page to be deleted. It is/was an inadvertent duplicate created in trying to introduce normal initial caps into the title. Geierstein41Geierstein41 (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Geierstein41: No problem. For future reference, you can change the name of a page by moving it, see WP:MOVE for more details. --John B123 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Karolina Muller

You have just placed my article on the speedy deletion for no reason. Seems like you are misinformed on the topic. My article about Karolina Muller isn’t promotional in any way. I’m only stating facts about a living and notable public figure who happens to be a supermodel from 1990’s and currently an actress and philanthropist. She’s been having a successful and long standing career in fashion and entertainment industry. The article is only factual and so are the references. Thank you for understanding, Teak11 teak11 14:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teak11 (talk • contribs)

Presumably the other editors who have deleted you previous articles under slightly different titles were equally as "misinformed"? --John B123 (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding references

Hi! Can you help me with adding references? In Bonus Socius the link on "Karpov 1990" is broken, although there is |ref=Karpov. It works if I change |ref=Karpov to |ref=CITEREFKarpov, but such value is rather strange. What is the correct way to fill |ref= parameters? Wikisaurus (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wikisaurus: Hi. If you use |ref=harv it will authomatically make the anchor author|year. To do this you need to use |first= and |last= rather than |author=. Alternatively you can define the anchor yourself using harvid for example |ref=CITEREFKarpov1990. I have edited Bonus Socius using both ways to give you an example. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you removing ISO formatted dates?

You've been running many bots for the last few days that are changing perfectly valid ISO-formatted dates that are automatically reformatted as whatever the viewer wants to see, pointlessly replacing them with dates that are not re-formattable for no reason. You're also marking these as a "minor" edit, which is a serious Wikipedia policy violation. Please stop doing so. SilverbackNet ^talk 04:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@SilverbackNet: Please see the Manual Of Style and also Wikipedia:Date formattings. Dates within an article should, wherever possible, be in a consistent format of either dmy or mdy. ISO 8601 dates are only acceptable "where brevity is helpful" but are not a preferred format. I make no decisions as to which format to use, but update formats on articles that have previously been tagged with {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}}. The script I use is MOSNUM dates.js, which is one of the recommended tools to make date format consistent. This automatically marks the edit as minor, so as this script has been extensively tested and reviewed, consensus must have been formed that a date format change is "minor" so no policy has been violated. Not everybody understands ISO 8601 and dates such as 2020-02-03 will confuse some people as to whether it means 3 February 2020 or 2 March 2020. --John B123 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop moving the page to draft space.

Sir, please. I am begging you. STOP moving this page back to draftspace. LITERALLY IN A FEW HOURS, there WILL BE CONTENT THERE!!!!. To quote Freud, this is just textbook anal retentiveness. Shall I report you to ANI for being disruptive? By IAR, I am more than allowed to keep the page in the mainspace, provided that I add content when I have things to add!! April 1 only FUCKING STARTED like a few hours ago!! Nothing has happened yet in April, so I have nothing to add!!! Leave it alone. please. Mgasparin (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: I find your comments above abusive. Feel free to involve an administrator. --John B123 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

To quote user:Buster7, another editor who works with me closely on these articles, you are getting involved in much ado about nothing. Please bridle [your] pony and wait a day or two. If you can't do that, there are other avenues for me to pursue. Mgasparin (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Manticore games

Hi John, the page concerns a company. It's describing who it was funded by and what's it purpose, I got the inspiration for sections and content on the Blizzard page. Tell me what we need to change to have it stay on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraICO (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC) I remove everything that sounded promotional to stick to facts. I hope it's good that way. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraICO (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@LauraICO: Hi. Articles on Wikipedia must have notability. To establish notability, a games company needs to have contributed something significant to the industry, a new concept, a new genre of games, a best-selling game in a particular sector or something else to distinguish its self. This needs to be verified from independent sources, rather than the company's website. Hope this helps. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@LauraICO: Hi. I note the article has now been deleted by an administrator. As you have a copy in your sandbox, you may wish to make changes there to establish notability as per my suggestions above. I'm happy to have a look at it once you have made changes if you wish. Regards --John B123 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your help, I removed quotes, stick to the facts, what else can I improve so it can get approved? LauraICO (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@LauraICO: Hi. I've had a quick look at User:LauraICO/sandbox, you need to add references from sources other than Manticore showing notability with appropriate text in the article in line with those sources. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lisa Taylor (model)

Hi John B123,

This regarding the tag you have left on the article Lisa Taylor (model). The subject was a leading model in the 70s worked with major fashion brands including in the cover of Vogue which passes WP:NMODEL. This is supported by the secondary sources from New York Post, Vogue and Chicago Tribune. Can you tell me what is your concern here?

- The9Man ^(Talk) 18:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, On the New Pages Feed the article came up tagged as previously deleted. Whilst there are other reasons for deletions, most biographies are deleted on notability grounds. The new page review does include checking for notability, but that is more for weeding out articles that are obviously not notable. My experience at WP:AFD is that notability is fickle, especially with bios. I tagged the article when reviewing because it had previously been deleted rather than having issues with it. Moving forward, I would suggest leaving it 7 days and then removing the tag if nobody has raised any concerns, Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I got your point. But it would be helpful if you check the deletion date also in the case of WP:BLP as things can change over the years. This article was last deleted in 2012. Looking ahead. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The WP:AFC review for articles created in draftspace by new users is an in depth check. The New Article Review is not intended to replicate that, but simply a triage. As the articles are in mainspace the first priority is to check for copyright violations, defamatory material etc and mark them for speedy deletion. Other articles have potential but need work to make them presentable, and the these are moved to draft. The remaining articles, for which there is no reason for them not to be in mainspace, have maintenance tags added if needed. With regard to previous deletions, WP:BLP does change over the years but generally this is an increase of requirements not a relaxation. Checking when an article was deleted, finding out if it was deleted under WP:GNG or a more specialist criteria such as WP:NMODEL, checking that the particular criteria hasn't changed over the years and also checking if anything significant had happened in the person's life to increase notability since the original article is deleted is beyond the scope of the New Page Review. --John B123 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Keeping other things apart, checking the article has two or more references to independent, reliable sources is under the scope of WP:NPP (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/NPP_flowchart.svg) and if that passes and satisfies WP:GNG, there is no reason to question the notability. Thank you. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you read the page Wikipedia:New pages patrol rather than just look at the flowchart, which would be too complicated to follow if it covered every scenario, there is a section Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), in which there is a need to check against WP:CSD. One of the CSD criteria is WP:G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". --John B123 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about notability here. G4 is for CSD not notability. And why do we skip the policies because it is complicated to use?
I think as a new reviewer, you are missing the first and foremost point mentioned in the Special:NewPagesFeed which says to 'Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling is essential to good reviewing. And pay attention to Not over-tagging.' - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to explain my reasoning for adding the tag to you, if you cannot accept than I'm not sure what else I can do.--John B123 (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not adhering with the Wikipedia policies and that is THE problem here. Since you are not interested to understand or discuss on the policies, I am leaving it to the admin. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rules, policies or guidelines that prevent a recreation of a previously deleted page being tagged with may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies? Whether that tag is added during a new page review or not is irrelevant.--John B123 (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rosguill: I would like to know your view on this concern. Please have a look when you have time. Thank you. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewers are absolutely expected to assess an article's claims to notability, although a 100% comprehensive check is not necessarily expected. The only case where you should forego a notability check entirely is if the article flagrantly violates copyright, is an attack page, or has some other egregious problem. G4 only applies to articles that have been previously deleted through AfD and where no improvements have been made over the previously deleted revision. In this case, the previous deletion was through A7 so this would not apply. Finally, you should generally only place tags if you've actually identified a problem with the article, not just if you have a suspicion of a problem; I only add the notability tag if I've analyzed the sources and done a quick (possibly not comprehensive) WP:BEFORE and come up short of GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, having seen that you requested to have your NPR permission removed, I'd just like to add that I would in no way consider the above to be a reason to strip someone of new page reviewer permissions. It's an honest mistake in a field of work where mistakes are to be expected. If you ever decide that you want to give reviewing another go, I'd be more than happy to restore your permissions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks, but I stand by my actions and still consider tagging with "notability" where there is potentially a question mark over notability is a legitimate action. As an aside, and having no bearing on previous events, having looked further after this thread started, I'm not sure the article does meet WP:NMODEL. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thank you for taking the time to assess the same. - The9Man ^(Talk) 19:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Quartirolo Lombardo

Sorry, Quartirolo Lombardo was still under creation. Now is better (There are some source). I'm going to finish the translation today or tomorrow. --Mezze stagioni (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mezze stagioni: Hi. No problem, let me know when you are finished. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Translation done! (There is still one section to be translated, I need to look at and lern how an "english" infobox about nutritional values works). Thank you. --Mezze stagioni (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mezze stagioni: Hi. I've had a quick look at the article. Apart from needing a few more references it's greatly improved. Unfortunately I'm not that knowledgeable about infoboxes so can't suggest a suitable one that includes nutritional info. Regards --John B123 (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Prostitution in Jordan

Hello. Thank you, first of all, for responding and informing me of proper practice, and for citing the archived article. I would still however like to pursue discussion about the info in the article you cited. It's a short blog post by an author who admits that he "still [has] no idea how the dialing codes work", can this really be cited as evidence of a "red light district" in Jordan? I live in Jordan as well, and so if I write a blog post saying that there isn't a red light district, it would be equally valid. The local news report (by Khaberni) cited after the next sentence does not make clear the scale of prostitution in Jubeiha, and so calling it a "red light district" based on that would be jumping to conclusions. A google search also shows nothing except another blogpost, which looks like it copied the wording of your Wikipedia article verbatim. Thanks. RadPaper (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I did struggle with finding good sources for the article. Being a sex tourism destination in the Middle East would seem to justify having the article but press coverage is limited. Any help you could give to improving the article would be appreciated. Regards --John B123 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the creation of the article is justified. My criticism is specifically directed towards the claim of a red light district in Jubieha. Barring any better citations for it, do you not think that this should be removed? Please note that I am not trying to be argumentative,I'm only trying to figure out the specifics of Wikipedia editing/citing. As for suggested sources, the closest thing I could find is an article in the Times of Israel claiming that overt red light districts are "rare". Regards, RadPaper (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. As that is a far better source I'll alter the article to suit. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Big Nose Kate

Hello, thanks for the help. I was actually going about things the hard way, creating a page for her in commons, not going well either I must say, when I get your message about the proper way to do it. Much appreciated! Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jennablurrs7575: Hi, no problem. I have struggled with this in the past so know how frustrating it can be. Let me know if I can be of any further help. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Review My page please

Dear JohnB123 can you review my pages Prema Qaidi (2002 film) and Romeo Juliet (2002 film) please please Putta26 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Putta26: I'm afraid I am no longer a New Page Reviewer, a partial list of reviewers is at Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers. (I've made a few minor changes to the articles). Regards --John B123 (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Prostitution in Africa2.PNG

The file File:Prostitution in Africa2.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Making inappropriate jokes

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. --Boil-in-the-Bag (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Boil-in-the-Bag: No idea what you are talking about? --John B123 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This. I find your comments above abusive. Feel free to involve an administrator.--Boil-in-the-Bag (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

How is "Changed unsourced to refimprove template" abusive? --John B123 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The troll has been blocked, John (not by me, another admin got there first). Bishonen | tålk 21:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC).

Hello John. Bishonen beat me here but I just want to add that you should feel free to remove this whole thread if you wish. Best regards and stay safe. MarnetteD|Talk 21:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen and MarnetteD: Hi, thank you both for your vigilance and time sorting this out. Regards --John B123 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome J. MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That was a known longtime troll, John. Well, I'm glad I beat someone somewhere, MarnetteD! I've just had any number of edit conflicts with faster admins, trying to decline their the troll's unblock requests, but at least I got to be the one removing talkpage access (yay). Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC).

Woot Woot Bishonen! MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Good luck in your race with the other admins Bishonen Regards --John B123 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

where and who should I talk to then?

because that is not necessarily not my "preferred version" it looks pretty obvious to me that every one of countries listed there are child sex tourism destinations, not the countries sending them. I already took example of US and UK. If people wanna know more about who sends the most, there should be independent sections.

But anyways, those editors that made the paragraphs, if they do not respond (like if they died or inactive) then what should I do? cause I found it is fairly older version. -strawburry17c (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Strawburry17c: - The article talk page is where discussions should take place. I see no problem with a separate section showing where child sex tourists come from, but that is an entirely different thing from deleting the section on South Korea. --John B123 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I already left my reasoning in the article talk page. didn't you check out? the format of the paragraphs in those chapters are not coherent and consistent. for some reason only in South Korea it is talking about the policing in extra-judicial regions, not the tourists WITHIN the country. If that is the case there should be for US, UK, Germany, Australia paragraphs too. -strawburry17c (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Strawburry17c: And I replied to your comments. As I said previously, the talk page is where the discussions should take place.--John B123 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I only changed to "United States citizens"

Not sure why you think I changed entire sentences. The quote was accurate, except for that. -strawburry17c (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You complained that the source didn't include South Korea, but changed it to "United States citizens" which wasn't included either. You can't complain the source has been misquoted and then change it to a different misquote to suit your own ends. --John B123 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

reFill

Hey, man! Thanks for your note. I will try to keep an eye out for that deadfill change. Thanks again! Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Fuck off!

Who the hell are you? Destroying information on Wikipedia? Sujitks95 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen, could you take appropriate action in regard to this abusive message. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange that you get it now, John, two months after the user's previously last edit. I don't like to shoot mosquitoes with a cannon, so I won't give the message the dignity of a warning or block. Please take it to WP:ANI if you'd like to get the opinion of other admins. You know you're free to remove it from your page, right? Bishonen | tålk 19:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: OK thanks. I wouldn't mind so much but I wan't the one who reverted all their edits on the only article contributed to - Binika Cheers --John B123 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)