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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
If you have a chance, can you respond back to the comments re: your oppose on my FAC? Thanks in advance. -- Admr Boltz 13:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have had enough for tonight, see you later. - Nick Thorne talk 12:36, 4 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
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 Hahc 21 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.)
Thanks a lot for your copy-edits on The Amps. They improved the article. Cheers, Moisejp ( talk) 05:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
You're gonna need it, in between Hendrix and soccer. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 01:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC) |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Gabe and I appear to be making progress at User talk:Dan56#Sources. Dan56 ( talk) 00:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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) |
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.
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)
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)
Would you be able to copyedit Narwhal for GA? Thanks. LittleJerry ( talk) 21:18, 26 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.
You are very strange. BitcoinrealityCheck ( talk) 21:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
[14]. 41.132.48.255 ( talk) 05:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
There is a discussion here which may be of interest to you. Radiopathy •talk• 23:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Want to semi protect Wellington Phoenix FC for a little while? NE Ent 09:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | 26 | 29 | 64 | ||
FL | 2 | 6 | 8 | ||||
GA | 1 | 11 | 63 | 170 | 245 | ||
B | 29 | 193 | 422 | 797 | 1,441 | ||
C | 29 | 202 | 922 | 4,318 | 5,471 | ||
Start | 1 | 210 | 2,295 | 28,040 | 30,546 | ||
Stub | 3 | 429 | 26,579 | 6 | 27,017 | ||
List | 29 | 315 | 2,938 | 1 | 3,283 | ||
Category | 1 | 5 | 25,961 | 25,967 | |||
Disambig | 1 | 3 | 178 | 182 | |||
File | 175 | 175 | |||||
Portal | 26 | 26 | |||||
Project | 1 | 19 | 20 | ||||
Redirect | 8 | 58 | 948 | 1,499 | 2,513 | ||
Template | 1 | 3,172 | 3,173 | ||||
NA | 2 | 15 | 17 | ||||
Other | 77 | 77 | |||||
Assessed | 66 | 660 | 4,536 | 63,849 | 31,114 | 100,225 | |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | |||||
Total | 66 | 660 | 4,536 | 63,849 | 31,114 | 1 | 100,226 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 341,487 | Ω = 5.27 |
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)
Again an issue with this page. Could you please consider to protect this page again. thx. Grsd ( talk) 21:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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 by the ones that need too much work to run) - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
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)
Hi John, do i now just cut it and paste it that bit??-- Discolover18 ( talk) 17:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.
Peter Isotalo 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
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/?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). /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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!
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks. Gamera1123 ( talk) 07:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks! -- John ( talk) 08:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
On 12 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert M. Bond, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert M. Bond, a lieutenant general in the USAF and decorated American veteran of the Vietnam War, was killed in a 1984 crash in Nevada while flying a Soviet-built MiG-23? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert M. Bond. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
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 pod ous 12:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
.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)
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)
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)
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 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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Re-evaluating_admin_decision_from_September_2013 prokaryotes ( talk) 20:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=615218415 Ryn78 ( talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello again, would you mind copy-editing rodent before it goes to GAN? Thank you. LittleJerry ( talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Almost there? LittleJerry ( talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I had meant to revert the anon who had deleted the "controversial" bit. Choor monster ( talk) 17:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
( talk page stalker) Dr. Blofeld, Light show is negative about most things that others do. Cassianto talk 17:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
Could you add the new track to Xigaze?-- Antemister ( talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
How come you've been deflaging templates? I don't see a reason in doing so. Seqqis ( talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
In light of the current ANI - see Talk:Robert of Chichester from earlier in the year. Ealdgyth - Talk 07:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
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:
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
I did discuss the problems... QuackGuru ( talk) 17:30, 5 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)
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)
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;
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)
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)
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)
<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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You may wish to see [ [74]]. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Didn't mean to revert your edits on the Sleeping Dogs talk page, sorry! Must have been a mis-click. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you check this and hook it up if you can. Thanks.-- Discolover18 ( talk) 10:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
For intervening on the talk page, it felt like banging my head against a wall, the guy simply wouldn't listen. W C M email 13:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the op-ed about girl ships. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Item 2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
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) |
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 Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
How goes it? Can you check this for us. Thanks mate.-- Discolover18 ( talk) 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
The vandal has returned to the Sting page. Rodericksilly ( talk) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. // Halibu tt 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
John, any updates? :) — Cirt ( talk) 21:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to finish the copy edit pass? — Cirt ( talk) 17:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
Guess what, he's back. Rodericksilly ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Hi John, according to this demiurge1000's conduct on your talk is harassment. 42.202.146.58 ( talk) 03:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi John,
Please look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#We have editing against consensus. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
Can I assume you saw it and that your response has been made? Thanks. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 11:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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.
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)
Does QG make rapid edits that don't take LesVegas's, Jayaguru-Shiya, and A1Candidate's POV into account?
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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!
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. 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 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) |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
If you have a chance, can you respond back to the comments re: your oppose on my FAC? Thanks in advance. -- Admr Boltz 13:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have had enough for tonight, see you later. - Nick Thorne talk 12:36, 4 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
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 Hahc 21 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.)
Thanks a lot for your copy-edits on The Amps. They improved the article. Cheers, Moisejp ( talk) 05:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
You're gonna need it, in between Hendrix and soccer. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 01:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC) |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Gabe and I appear to be making progress at User talk:Dan56#Sources. Dan56 ( talk) 00:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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) |
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.
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)
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)
Would you be able to copyedit Narwhal for GA? Thanks. LittleJerry ( talk) 21:18, 26 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.
You are very strange. BitcoinrealityCheck ( talk) 21:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
[14]. 41.132.48.255 ( talk) 05:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
There is a discussion here which may be of interest to you. Radiopathy •talk• 23:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Want to semi protect Wellington Phoenix FC for a little while? NE Ent 09:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | 26 | 29 | 64 | ||
FL | 2 | 6 | 8 | ||||
GA | 1 | 11 | 63 | 170 | 245 | ||
B | 29 | 193 | 422 | 797 | 1,441 | ||
C | 29 | 202 | 922 | 4,318 | 5,471 | ||
Start | 1 | 210 | 2,295 | 28,040 | 30,546 | ||
Stub | 3 | 429 | 26,579 | 6 | 27,017 | ||
List | 29 | 315 | 2,938 | 1 | 3,283 | ||
Category | 1 | 5 | 25,961 | 25,967 | |||
Disambig | 1 | 3 | 178 | 182 | |||
File | 175 | 175 | |||||
Portal | 26 | 26 | |||||
Project | 1 | 19 | 20 | ||||
Redirect | 8 | 58 | 948 | 1,499 | 2,513 | ||
Template | 1 | 3,172 | 3,173 | ||||
NA | 2 | 15 | 17 | ||||
Other | 77 | 77 | |||||
Assessed | 66 | 660 | 4,536 | 63,849 | 31,114 | 100,225 | |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | |||||
Total | 66 | 660 | 4,536 | 63,849 | 31,114 | 1 | 100,226 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 341,487 | Ω = 5.27 |
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)
Again an issue with this page. Could you please consider to protect this page again. thx. Grsd ( talk) 21:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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 by the ones that need too much work to run) - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
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)
Hi John, do i now just cut it and paste it that bit??-- Discolover18 ( talk) 17:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.
Peter Isotalo 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
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/?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). /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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!
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks. Gamera1123 ( talk) 07:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks! -- John ( talk) 08:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
On 12 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert M. Bond, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert M. Bond, a lieutenant general in the USAF and decorated American veteran of the Vietnam War, was killed in a 1984 crash in Nevada while flying a Soviet-built MiG-23? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert M. Bond. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
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 pod ous 12:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
.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)
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)
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)
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 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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Re-evaluating_admin_decision_from_September_2013 prokaryotes ( talk) 20:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=615218415 Ryn78 ( talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello again, would you mind copy-editing rodent before it goes to GAN? Thank you. LittleJerry ( talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Almost there? LittleJerry ( talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I had meant to revert the anon who had deleted the "controversial" bit. Choor monster ( talk) 17:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
( talk page stalker) Dr. Blofeld, Light show is negative about most things that others do. Cassianto talk 17:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
Could you add the new track to Xigaze?-- Antemister ( talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
How come you've been deflaging templates? I don't see a reason in doing so. Seqqis ( talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
In light of the current ANI - see Talk:Robert of Chichester from earlier in the year. Ealdgyth - Talk 07:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
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:
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
I did discuss the problems... QuackGuru ( talk) 17:30, 5 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)
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)
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;
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)
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)
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)
<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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You may wish to see [ [74]]. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Didn't mean to revert your edits on the Sleeping Dogs talk page, sorry! Must have been a mis-click. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you check this and hook it up if you can. Thanks.-- Discolover18 ( talk) 10:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
For intervening on the talk page, it felt like banging my head against a wall, the guy simply wouldn't listen. W C M email 13:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the op-ed about girl ships. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Item 2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
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) |
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 Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
How goes it? Can you check this for us. Thanks mate.-- Discolover18 ( talk) 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
The vandal has returned to the Sting page. Rodericksilly ( talk) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. // Halibu tt 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
John, any updates? :) — Cirt ( talk) 21:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to finish the copy edit pass? — Cirt ( talk) 17:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
Guess what, he's back. Rodericksilly ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Hi John, according to this demiurge1000's conduct on your talk is harassment. 42.202.146.58 ( talk) 03:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi John,
Please look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#We have editing against consensus. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
Can I assume you saw it and that your response has been made? Thanks. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 11:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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.
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)
Does QG make rapid edits that don't take LesVegas's, Jayaguru-Shiya, and A1Candidate's POV into account?
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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!
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. 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 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) |
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) |
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)
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)
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)