Thanks for your updates on John Worboys. Fences& Windows 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to request a good copy/prose edit for Borodino-class battlecruiser whenever you get a chance. Many years ago, it had a very contentious FAC, but I've recently revised it in light of the comments and am considering resubmitting it. However, I think that I'm probably still too close to my own writing and would like a fresh pair of eyes to see what issues remain. You've edited a few of my articles before and I've always appreciated your work, even if I might not have agreed with every change. So I'm hoping that you've got the time to tackle this one and that I've not left much work for you.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Happy First Edit Day, John, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightly mad 08:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC) |
Joining the choir, good to know you! ---- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Thank you for your impact | |
---|---|
writing about a freedom fighter |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.
Let's put this article on the air.
http://blog.maxieduca.com.br/bolsa-valores-empreendedorismo/
http://www.jornalpontagrossa.com/2017/10/brasil-milionario-paranaense-esta.html
http://abvcap.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-imprensa.aspx?c=pt-BR&id=3841
http://www.jornalmeuparana.com/portal/ver_noticia.php?ver=14278
http://thebrazilianfinancial.com/entrevista/
https://www.folhageral.com/empresas-e-negocios/2017/12/investidor-milionario-cria-maior-empresa-de-relacoes-com-investidores-da-america-latina/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you could provide some comments on my FAC Margaret (singer). Best. ArturSik ( talk) 16:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harold Strachan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Not guilty ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Precious six years |
---|
... for improving article quality in January 2018! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello John ! I've tried at the article, but as I once wrote a stub about United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation - which now has grown quite a lot. I have earlier removed long lists which lacked sources, which were "unencyclopedic", also according to others. Now strange inline refs have appeared "(sup)8(/sup)" I've substituted the brackets with parenthesis; number 8 could just as well had been any number. But this syntax begins with the eighth inline ref, first headline after the lead. They began with this edit, I was informed. I'm not certain, but suspect they are not valid at all. Suggestions ? Anyone else I ought to ask instead ? There's no way (I have been able to) see what these "refs" actually are. Phony ones ? And if I'm correct, I find this to be far worse than not giving any at all. Sorry for having bothered you, and I may be wrong. Boeing720 ( talk) 11:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Kindly check out discussion at User talk:Dlohcierekim#Ayurveda. Anmolbhat ( talk) 11:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RoyalFlashPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey. I was going through the whole article one more time and in the Monkey Business section where she talks about how she was involved more in the creative process of the album I thought that maybe I would expand on it, so I've added a sentence on how she was involved more: "Monkey Business was released in June 2017 and peaked at number 8 in Poland.[5]. Margaret described the album as "versatile" and has said that she had more artistic control over its creative process than with her debut album.[6][7] She recalled that this time she was in charge whereas with Add the Blonde she listened to and took advice from her producers." What do you think ? Does that make sense? ArturSik ( talk) 15:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your fixes. I wondered why there was a mini-flurry of edits, as it had slipped my mind that it would be appearing on the main page from midnight. In my mind, Tuesday starts when I get up tomorrow morning, it's still Monday evening yet. Eric Corbett 00:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
For your viewing "pleasure"... German-occupied Europe. What is it with people and the need to strew little blobs of color all over everything? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi John. Please have a look a my talk page. This User has been stalking me for very many years now on Wikipedia. It brings the entire project into disrepute. Mais oui! ( talk) 08:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This could do with your input; and I would be delighted if you were to engage at the PR; I think we see eye on matter of prose and it would be very helpful indeed to have your help and view. No worries if you are busy. Ceoil ( talk) 23:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm bothering colleagues who contributed to Sir Osbert's peer review to ask if they wish look in at his FAC page if so inclined. Perfectly understand if not, naturally. Tim riley talk 09:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
4 March 1932 – 9 November 2008 |
---|
Thank you for what you did for Miriam Makeba, "a musician and activist who had a lasting impact on music and popular culture in South Africa and abroad". I use her expressive face today, her birthday, to illustrate my own singing in defiance, - DYK ... that the hymn " Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? (March 2014). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, we have a multiple IP user who has returned to their old tricks and keeps changing the sales figure from what is in the source attributed. Thanks. Rodericksilly ( talk) 11:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw your edit [1] at his talk page (which he since deleted). There is another issue with the edit [2] you brought to his attention. It is the fact he removed a cn tag and replaced with an article [3] as a reference that made no mention of the actress. Is that disruptive editing (the false use of references is a growing problem here) I'll leave to you. @ Makro: maybe Makro would like to respond here to what I said about his recent edit. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi John. Hope you are well. Could you take a quick look at this serious BLP violation made by an apparently "experienced" editor? Cheers, --Mike 94.119.64.7 ( talk) 16:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in March! Happy Easter! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You might want to look at this afD he started and my reply back to him found here [4]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Roxy_the_dog -- NeilN talk to me 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
John, I just realized that you have not responded to the appeal at AE that you were notified of by Neil, but you are editing elsewhere. That seems to send the message that you consider your block of Roxy, and other admins' attempts to discuss it with you, the least important Wikipedia thing on your plate right now. Is it really? Please respond. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC).
Whatever special editing restrictions you want to place on an article need to be "advertised" per this and logged per this. Let me know if you have any questions. -- NeilN talk to me 20:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed! Please consider adding editnotice on Ayurveda, just like we can also see on Homeopathy( Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Homeopathy, Template:Editnotices/Page/Homeopathy), whenever a person will edit the article [6] or its talk page [7], they will be already aware of the article sanctions. My Lord ( talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I stopped by here to see if you wanted any help with applying discretionary sanctions but instead see you've bought into this involved nonsense. Will you be recusing yourself from any BLP admin actions involving anyone participating in the same discussion or talk page as you months or years ago? I would think (and hope) not. If you look at my posts at AE, the first said the block might be justified but was improperly levied and the second pointed to an editing restriction that might justify the block. Seven different admins including myself posted there and every one said the sanction was procedurally flawed. There are four things required for a proper AE block and only one was done (and not by you). The unblock wasn't "nonsense" - it was required by Arbcom who has laid down the rules every admin using discretionary sanctions has to follow (or potentially be desysopped). Now, if you still want any assistance in ticking the right boxes I will do my best to answer any questions you might have, as I offered to above. -- NeilN talk to me 17:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
In terms of "rushing" to unblock, my sense of urgency stemmed from the fact that there was a consensus that Roxy's block was inappropriate. Once that consensus exists, I think we owe it to the blocked editor to act expeditiously, out of fairness; there is ongoing harm while s/he remains blocked for reasons determined to be invalid. If I were the blocked editor, and a consensus of admins at WP:AE had decided that I'd been incorrectly blocked, then I'd feel a sense of urgency to get it fixed. Arguably that empathy for the blocked editor comes at the expense of empathy for you, the blocking admin, which I regret—you undoubtedly had reasons for acting as you did and would have explained them in more detail had I given you the opportunity. That's an unfortunate but very real trade-off.
In terms of the block itself, if it were just a procedural issue then I'd be more inclined to argue in favor of letting it stand. I agree with you that WP:AE has accreted a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy, especially since its initial intent was to streamline the handling of problem areas. But there were not just technical concerns. There were also concerns (and not just on my part) about the fairness and appropriateness of the sanction.
I don't believe that I am, or was, "involved" in any meaningful way that would prohibit acting as an admin on the request in question. The only evidence (I almost wrote "evidence" in scare quotes, but that would be churlish) that I saw presented was the output of an editor-interaction tool, which is notoriously useless in these situations. That said, if you have an ongoing concern that I'm involved, then I'm open to discussing it further either here or on my talkpage, since that is an issue I take seriously. I edit and admin controversial topics regularly, and have for more than a decade, so I wouldn't still be here if I didn't make a concerted effort to stay on the right side of that particular red line. In any case, I don't think that the unblock was particularly controversial, in that there was a documented consensus of other uninvolved admins supporting it; I think it was more an instance of implementing a consensus expeditiously, rather than taking a unilateral action.
Anyhow, I know we've had positive interactions in the past and I hope that a sense of mutual respect survives this incident; I certainly respect you and your work here, even though we clearly disagree on both substance and style when it comes to this particular situation. MastCell Talk 18:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
concerns (and not just on my part) about the fairness and appropriateness of the sanction; so you go to an article that you know has been a nest of controversy for years, and have previously been blocked for insulting people on. You know it is under restrictions on edit-warring. You also know that it's under an ArbCom restriction, because you added the template to the article talk page yourself. You make three reverts in a couple of days. No BLP or copyvio exemption, just flat-out edit-warring to score some sort of point. What do you honestly expect to happen? -- John ( talk) 00:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
On 4 April 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ray Wilkins, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, John, perhaps you noticed the complaints by me and others at AE about the unusual editing restrictions on
Talk:Ayurveda: "You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked
.
"I've never heard of such a restriction before... Does it mean the article can't be edited at all without going via the talkpage, and WP:BOLD doesn't apply to it, nor our "bias" in favour of reliable scientific sources?"
"I don't think this is a workable sanction" It was actually added by Jytdog,
[8], and I'm not sure where it comes from, but I think from
here and ultimately from you. I may well be wrong about that. Anyway, I propose removing the restriction per the comments from me and MastCell that I've linked to. Would you object to that? I mean, I'd like to remove the whole thing that's outside the edit notice template, including the link to "a number of editing restrictions" in an archive. AFAICS, it's not on to expect people to comply with a whole pretty complicated discussion in an archive, simply because it's linked on the talkpage. As I say, I may be wrong that this is your baby at all, but in any case, do you object to any of it?
P.S., normally, I would offer to replace those restrictions with more ordinary ones, such as the standard restrictions at Talk:Donald Trump. It's just that I have sworn never to put any page restrictions on any pages — I hate 'em all and think they're a mare's nest, though I realize some of them may be necessary sometimes. I could put a note on AE mentioning that I've removed what's there, and invite other uninvolved admins to add what they think may be necessary. Unless you would like to do it? Bishonen | talk 14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC).
I want to thank you once more for your help with dubnium. Now after this review is over, I've got another article I'd want to submit to FAC, history of aluminium, but I think it would be great if you looked through it first and corrected prose if that is needed. The GAN reviewer helped me out with prose a bit, but I'd like to make sure that the prose quality is up to the high FA standard. Could you help me with that?-- R8R ( talk) 07:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
John, can you tell me what "I spoke out for removal of your bit" refers to? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You have a user page at
User:John/sandbox3 that is in breach of
WP:POLEMIC, which states that if the information is to be used in a dispute resolution process it should be "in a timely manner
". This page was reactivated from old information on 6 February 2018, and it is way outside any reasonable definition of "timely". I suggest this is blanked, or better still deleted, before further steps are taken. -
SchroCat (
talk)
13:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you made several alterations to the Nick Drake article, where you changed references to spring and autumn to 'early' or 'late' in the year. Is this to conform with a Wikipedia policy? I just wondered. It's not a big deal, but it occurred to me that where it said 'spring' I would assume that to mean perhaps March, April and May, but when altered to 'early' I would be more likely to interpret that as meaning January, February and March. Dubmill ( talk) 11:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in April! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear John,
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that the
Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors case request has been withdrawn by filing party and archived.
Best regards,
Kostas20142 (
talk)
17:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I know you and I aren't on the best of terms right now, but this is wholly unrelated to that. Your close puzzled me. You put it in the section about ANI, but you also effectively closed the ongoing topic discussion for BB to be banned from ANI and AN with limited exceptions. Nor did you comment on that discussion. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to challenge you also on
John decided a long time ago that citations to theI certainly do not think my view on this is in any way exceptional; a well-participated RfC concluded a year ago thatMirrorDaily Mail are not permitted under any circumstances in a BLP article. His rigid view has not been accepted by many editors.Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.... There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate.(my emphasis) We also have a core policy, WP:BLP, which statesThis policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.(my emphasis) If I am out of line in reading these two very firm longstanding consensuses and concluding that this was a terrible edit, even with WP:EVADE arguably behind it, then I still do not see it. I am perfectly ready to accept critique on the way I delivered the message, but I stand utterly by my judgement that the edit was unacceptable. Thoughts?
While we're on the topic of us rednecks--we put on a damn good show last week in Montgomery, which all of y'all missed but I didn't, and this Thursday morning we're going to the The National Memorial for Peace and Justice. All of us white people need to go. I'm going with a dude who's as white and bald as me (though slightly younger), and we're going to go and be moved and feel ashamed in some ways and ready to #dobetter. The first time you shake hands with a black man who used to be on death row (and every American knows why that black man was so much more likely to be on death row than any white man) and now is free thanks to the Equal Justice Initiative, you don't forget that. I shook hands with a man who used to be on death row two weeks ago. It is a very special feeling. And one of my pipe dreams is to have 4000+ articles called "Lynching of person X" so that it won't be so easy to forget what was done. Sorry, I guess I'm getting carried away. You know both of you are my favorites. John, I don't have to tell you what fatherhood does to a person. Drmies ( talk) 23:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to ask you if the pause with the copyediting was intentional. Again, as I said, there is no hurry, and our project will launch another FAC before that of this article. I just wanted to make sure it hadn't slipped out of your mind.-- R8R ( talk) 12:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, John. Why do you seem to have such an issue with the word 'although' being used in articles?-- Kieronoldham ( talk) 23:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey Edibletabler ( talk) 04:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Edibletabler ( talk) 04:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you have time to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive1? Should be easy after a thorough review by Usernameunique ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, John...I'll begin by saying I am a FA survivor (7x as either nom or rev) so most of what I see when reviewing/editing articles is based on those past experiences...every moment of which I remember fondly, enthusiastically, and with great appreciation for the process and editors involved. I actually enjoy doing it...and that's what brought me here. I've seen some of your comments re: Barrack Obama, and from what I've gathered from some of the war stories I've heard from other editors regarding that BLP, the TE and some of the behavior was nothing short of nightmarish. I'm hoping to tap into some of your experiences for guidance (even though I long ago promised myself to never talk politics or religion, and I blame my work at NPP as the cause for that broken promise). There appears to be some consistency in the style and presentation across the board for articles of past presidents, as there should be when compliant with PAGs. I also realize that we're dealing with Trump's unpresidential personality and flamboyance plus whatever else online media, pundits and his opposition throws at him in today's click-bait economy. I imagine NOTNEWS and Coatrack will remain an issue with that BLP for some time to come. I'm not asking you to get involved in the editing - oh, contrare - but I was hoping you would share your views with me (in an overall summary) as a fellow FA reviewer re: his BLP as a "check-all-systems" for me to gage my own editorial judgment. My focus is NPOV, the quality of the syntax and sources cited for contentious labeling and statements (I've noticed too few other significant views included in the article), and I see an apparent bias or spin and coatrackishness of the article overall. There are instances of stating opinions as facts in WikiVoice, cherrypicking quotes (and omission of material which changes context), and stating seriously contested assertions as facts instead of opinions per WP:REDFLAG. Anyway...if you don't have time, I understand, but I hope you do. Atsme 📞 📧 15:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
|
... for improving article quality in May! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey John. If you have some time, could you take a look at this -
Talk:List_of_association_football_teams_to_have_won_four_or_more_trophies_in_one_season#Criteria. Would be good to get your thoughts on it. Let me know if it's not clear. Thanks --
hippo43 (
talk)
21:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Slow edit war between me and a series of IPs geolocating to Jakarta. I wonder could you protect and/or suggest any other suitable action? Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I noted that you removed a great deal of content on 2016-08-15, I understand the reason is lack of a verifiable source. Is there any way to add this information, which to the best of my knowledge is correct, but would otherwise be classed as original research? 146.169.177.33 ( talk) 15:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying I disagree with all your recent edits, but I do think that the removal of fairly innocuous material about the history of individual prep schools is somewhat savage. It is not the case that all unreferenced material has to be removed; it becomes an issue only when it is promotional or otherwise misleading. Deb ( talk) 07:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi John. I wonder could you move this article name to Third Stream? All 22 instances in the article use upper case for both words. Lower case seems wrong to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in June! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you delete that personal attack on my talk page . Kpgj hpjm 18:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Failed to ping you in my edit summary, but I was in the middle of expanding it, so I kept the version I was working on. I was hoping for it to be in chronological order (going to put the Columbia details in now), but feel free to reorder if you disagree. I will be done in maybe 20 minutes or so on that section. Kees08 (Talk) 20:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I am being ATTACKED - WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT by this person - User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for many months, he apparrently hates me and the visual arts. Please get this guy off my back. Thank you... Modernist ( talk) 15:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Because I don't need to unload on the FAC talk page. Really, I don't. (Thank you for that comment, by the way) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right; I should know better than to call in a mention of good faith in a discussion like that; I'll try not to make that mistake again. I think I was concerned that you weren't being quite fair to Brian, but as I see you've tweaked your comment a bit I've no more to say. Thanks for starting that discussion, by the way; I think it's been useful. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello John. By any chance, could you review the article at its FAC page? The review seems to go fine except it could use another reviewer and the clock is ticking. If you could, feel free to think I owe you something for that.-- R8R ( talk) 13:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles such as North Cascades National Park and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article! Your copyediting saved the day John. While I'd like to think of myself as a good organizer and researcher, prose is not my forte. Thanks again!-- MONGO ( talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi John. I wonder would you care to look at this? Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
High Tatras |
---|
... for improving article quality in July! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi John I see you are a member of the Project Zimbabwe, so you are the right person for me to address. The List of wards of Zimbabwe was mostly put together between 2006 and 2008/9. In the meantime a lot of the information has become woefully outdated, new divisions have been created, districts have been merged or divided, etc., example, Zaka is new. I also found (without actually intentionally looking for such) quite a few names linked to places in other countries or to pages that are not even about any place in the world. Looking at documents such as this and this one gets the feelings that it will be a sisyphean task to update the information; that it might be best to delete it, as it might take longer to verify everthing in it then creating a new one from scratch with new sources. Your appraisal and opinion would be highly valued. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 06:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I've decided to move on and stop holding a grudge against you. Hopefully you'll forgive me too. Anyway, I'm hoping to do some more editing in the near future. I'm probably going to avoid BLPs though since I don't really like editing them and I tend to enjoy working on anime/video game related articles more. Sakura Cartelet Talk 03:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in August! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
'However' might be a word to watch, but removing it wherever you see it without regard to whether it is actually problematic is, frankly, disruptive. Where you recently
removed it, its use was not inappropriate. From a structural standpoint it is better at the beginning of that sentence, and I placed it back there, but just removing it isn't improving the article. The source clearly states the relationship between the content of the preceding sentence and the one with the 'however', so its use is appropriate: "Although the acid-ash hypothesis has been widely accepted and broadly stated as the major modifiable risk factor for bone loss in well cited scientific papers [4, 15], as well as textbooks [16], reference works [17, 18], and lay literature, this hypothesis has not been subjected to critical review."
. —
Insertcleverphrasehere (
or here)
06:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi John - regarding this edit where you removed the navbox, what's your opinion regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 12#Template:People's Vote? -- wooden superman 15:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi John! I've got an FAC of mine going on, and there's a comment in it that says, "Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem." I'm somewhat surprised to see this but, even though I will surely try to fix myself what I can, could I ask for your help with this? I know I've been needy lately with my prose but could you please help me? If you can, this will be greatly appreciated! Also, if you want a favor in return, ask right away!-- R8R ( talk) 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Hi! Could you explain why is it unnecessary to link participating countries of the Joint Investigation Team in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Criminal investigation. There is even an internal link of JIT in the lead section pointing to this section. There are no any other links in the whole article where readers can click on the team countries. JSoos ( talk) 13:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
And then there was the help of a friend. Read the rule Wikipedia:Consensus, please.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the consensus favours your position- have you any arguments for this besides the years of your adminship? The history of revisions attests against you.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You could use the fingers on each hand.- I will answer in your style - maybe you will try to use your head to understand what is going on in discussing your edits? It does not matter which terminology you like. It is important that the quoted sources used this, and not another term.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nicoljaus (
talk •
contribs)
23:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
Remembering fondly six years of helping each other, after meeting in sad circumstances. Wink mit dem Zaunpfahl: I have a FAC open (and a procrastinated one, and it's about Time, and time), and just read yesterday thanks for your copy-editing. Could you do that for me, and perhaps even a review? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The article Wilhelm Krüger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
It appears that this is a fake article, because that person never existed : he was confused with Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger at the time of his creation. It has just been deleted from French Wikipedia where it had been copied from English Wikipedia. Please see that discussion page : [17]. Best regards. Gkml
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Gkml (
talk)
16:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, John !
I'm having very unnecessary trouble with another user over a talk-page comment. I think he even removes signatures at his own talk-page. And comes with the most silly allegations I've ever experienced here. Just imagine - if I at talk-page of either
Nicola Sturgeon ,
Mary, Queen of Scots or who ever historical Scottish celebrity (or the opposite of "celebrity"), had came up with missing information and had written "this article is too positive" (too negative if it was about "a bad guy")- would I then be "revealed Anti-Scottish bias" ?
Perhaps , you could have a brief look here
/info/en/?search=Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Ukraine_1920,_Vilnius,_after_1926_a_fascistic_state._Too_positive_tone_for_this_status
And with your admin-tools, perhaps you can see weather this other user changes things not intended to be changed. If possible perhaps you also can have a look at this user's own talk-page. I think he removes signatures and other matters in order to hide earlier notes and warnings, and has even been asked not to do so. And this user is banned from at least one "heavy" topic, according to what he has replied to another user at his talk-page (WW2-polish_matters, I believe). Now he want's me to apologise, see
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Boeing720#Confused.
What to do, I don't know. I just wish to get rid of him. There's no substance to what he writes. And if possible only.
Boeing720 (
talk)
18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
We have a problem with this user on the page Steve Hogarth who keeps changing the D.O.B. to conflict with the date we have a source for. Thanks.
Hello, John. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Miss you. Miss him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Hope you all ok. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Gothic Seasons Greetings |
![]() |
Wishing you all the best for x-mass, and hope all is well. Please drop me a line when you get a chance, as you are missed around here, and I worry. Ceoil ( talk) 18:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
Season's greetings! |
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2019 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive.... Modernist ( talk) 12:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones ( contribs) ( talk) 12:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you for your project help last year! How are you? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello John ! I have apparently caused some awkward error by moving an article to a better name. But I can't get the talk-page moved correctly. I'm very sorry.
Could you please have a look this technical matter ? The article in question is Bridge related and is this one
Benjamin Twos - but then look at the talk-page. I've truly tried. Sorry again.
Boeing720 (
talk)
23:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Got this bit of merde on my talk page just now....
'You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[WP:AC/DS#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic.'
What is this about? Sounds a tad threatening...
Sarah777 (
talk)
00:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
John, I didn't really realise, until a very short time ago, that I had not seen you editing since last September. I do hope every thing is just alright with you. I was recently reminded, by an erstwhile Bournemouth mystic hermit acquaintance of ours, that in the words of our glorious leader Mao Zed Wales we all here at Wiki Narnia have to "march or die". Kind regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your updates on John Worboys. Fences& Windows 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to request a good copy/prose edit for Borodino-class battlecruiser whenever you get a chance. Many years ago, it had a very contentious FAC, but I've recently revised it in light of the comments and am considering resubmitting it. However, I think that I'm probably still too close to my own writing and would like a fresh pair of eyes to see what issues remain. You've edited a few of my articles before and I've always appreciated your work, even if I might not have agreed with every change. So I'm hoping that you've got the time to tackle this one and that I've not left much work for you.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Happy First Edit Day, John, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightly mad 08:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC) |
Joining the choir, good to know you! ---- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Thank you for your impact | |
---|---|
writing about a freedom fighter |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.
Let's put this article on the air.
http://blog.maxieduca.com.br/bolsa-valores-empreendedorismo/
http://www.jornalpontagrossa.com/2017/10/brasil-milionario-paranaense-esta.html
http://abvcap.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-imprensa.aspx?c=pt-BR&id=3841
http://www.jornalmeuparana.com/portal/ver_noticia.php?ver=14278
http://thebrazilianfinancial.com/entrevista/
https://www.folhageral.com/empresas-e-negocios/2017/12/investidor-milionario-cria-maior-empresa-de-relacoes-com-investidores-da-america-latina/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you could provide some comments on my FAC Margaret (singer). Best. ArturSik ( talk) 16:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harold Strachan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Not guilty ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Precious six years |
---|
... for improving article quality in January 2018! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello John ! I've tried at the article, but as I once wrote a stub about United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation - which now has grown quite a lot. I have earlier removed long lists which lacked sources, which were "unencyclopedic", also according to others. Now strange inline refs have appeared "(sup)8(/sup)" I've substituted the brackets with parenthesis; number 8 could just as well had been any number. But this syntax begins with the eighth inline ref, first headline after the lead. They began with this edit, I was informed. I'm not certain, but suspect they are not valid at all. Suggestions ? Anyone else I ought to ask instead ? There's no way (I have been able to) see what these "refs" actually are. Phony ones ? And if I'm correct, I find this to be far worse than not giving any at all. Sorry for having bothered you, and I may be wrong. Boeing720 ( talk) 11:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Kindly check out discussion at User talk:Dlohcierekim#Ayurveda. Anmolbhat ( talk) 11:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RoyalFlashPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey. I was going through the whole article one more time and in the Monkey Business section where she talks about how she was involved more in the creative process of the album I thought that maybe I would expand on it, so I've added a sentence on how she was involved more: "Monkey Business was released in June 2017 and peaked at number 8 in Poland.[5]. Margaret described the album as "versatile" and has said that she had more artistic control over its creative process than with her debut album.[6][7] She recalled that this time she was in charge whereas with Add the Blonde she listened to and took advice from her producers." What do you think ? Does that make sense? ArturSik ( talk) 15:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your fixes. I wondered why there was a mini-flurry of edits, as it had slipped my mind that it would be appearing on the main page from midnight. In my mind, Tuesday starts when I get up tomorrow morning, it's still Monday evening yet. Eric Corbett 00:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
For your viewing "pleasure"... German-occupied Europe. What is it with people and the need to strew little blobs of color all over everything? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi John. Please have a look a my talk page. This User has been stalking me for very many years now on Wikipedia. It brings the entire project into disrepute. Mais oui! ( talk) 08:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This could do with your input; and I would be delighted if you were to engage at the PR; I think we see eye on matter of prose and it would be very helpful indeed to have your help and view. No worries if you are busy. Ceoil ( talk) 23:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm bothering colleagues who contributed to Sir Osbert's peer review to ask if they wish look in at his FAC page if so inclined. Perfectly understand if not, naturally. Tim riley talk 09:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
4 March 1932 – 9 November 2008 |
---|
Thank you for what you did for Miriam Makeba, "a musician and activist who had a lasting impact on music and popular culture in South Africa and abroad". I use her expressive face today, her birthday, to illustrate my own singing in defiance, - DYK ... that the hymn " Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? (March 2014). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, we have a multiple IP user who has returned to their old tricks and keeps changing the sales figure from what is in the source attributed. Thanks. Rodericksilly ( talk) 11:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw your edit [1] at his talk page (which he since deleted). There is another issue with the edit [2] you brought to his attention. It is the fact he removed a cn tag and replaced with an article [3] as a reference that made no mention of the actress. Is that disruptive editing (the false use of references is a growing problem here) I'll leave to you. @ Makro: maybe Makro would like to respond here to what I said about his recent edit. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi John. Hope you are well. Could you take a quick look at this serious BLP violation made by an apparently "experienced" editor? Cheers, --Mike 94.119.64.7 ( talk) 16:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in March! Happy Easter! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You might want to look at this afD he started and my reply back to him found here [4]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Roxy_the_dog -- NeilN talk to me 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
John, I just realized that you have not responded to the appeal at AE that you were notified of by Neil, but you are editing elsewhere. That seems to send the message that you consider your block of Roxy, and other admins' attempts to discuss it with you, the least important Wikipedia thing on your plate right now. Is it really? Please respond. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC).
Whatever special editing restrictions you want to place on an article need to be "advertised" per this and logged per this. Let me know if you have any questions. -- NeilN talk to me 20:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed! Please consider adding editnotice on Ayurveda, just like we can also see on Homeopathy( Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Homeopathy, Template:Editnotices/Page/Homeopathy), whenever a person will edit the article [6] or its talk page [7], they will be already aware of the article sanctions. My Lord ( talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I stopped by here to see if you wanted any help with applying discretionary sanctions but instead see you've bought into this involved nonsense. Will you be recusing yourself from any BLP admin actions involving anyone participating in the same discussion or talk page as you months or years ago? I would think (and hope) not. If you look at my posts at AE, the first said the block might be justified but was improperly levied and the second pointed to an editing restriction that might justify the block. Seven different admins including myself posted there and every one said the sanction was procedurally flawed. There are four things required for a proper AE block and only one was done (and not by you). The unblock wasn't "nonsense" - it was required by Arbcom who has laid down the rules every admin using discretionary sanctions has to follow (or potentially be desysopped). Now, if you still want any assistance in ticking the right boxes I will do my best to answer any questions you might have, as I offered to above. -- NeilN talk to me 17:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
In terms of "rushing" to unblock, my sense of urgency stemmed from the fact that there was a consensus that Roxy's block was inappropriate. Once that consensus exists, I think we owe it to the blocked editor to act expeditiously, out of fairness; there is ongoing harm while s/he remains blocked for reasons determined to be invalid. If I were the blocked editor, and a consensus of admins at WP:AE had decided that I'd been incorrectly blocked, then I'd feel a sense of urgency to get it fixed. Arguably that empathy for the blocked editor comes at the expense of empathy for you, the blocking admin, which I regret—you undoubtedly had reasons for acting as you did and would have explained them in more detail had I given you the opportunity. That's an unfortunate but very real trade-off.
In terms of the block itself, if it were just a procedural issue then I'd be more inclined to argue in favor of letting it stand. I agree with you that WP:AE has accreted a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy, especially since its initial intent was to streamline the handling of problem areas. But there were not just technical concerns. There were also concerns (and not just on my part) about the fairness and appropriateness of the sanction.
I don't believe that I am, or was, "involved" in any meaningful way that would prohibit acting as an admin on the request in question. The only evidence (I almost wrote "evidence" in scare quotes, but that would be churlish) that I saw presented was the output of an editor-interaction tool, which is notoriously useless in these situations. That said, if you have an ongoing concern that I'm involved, then I'm open to discussing it further either here or on my talkpage, since that is an issue I take seriously. I edit and admin controversial topics regularly, and have for more than a decade, so I wouldn't still be here if I didn't make a concerted effort to stay on the right side of that particular red line. In any case, I don't think that the unblock was particularly controversial, in that there was a documented consensus of other uninvolved admins supporting it; I think it was more an instance of implementing a consensus expeditiously, rather than taking a unilateral action.
Anyhow, I know we've had positive interactions in the past and I hope that a sense of mutual respect survives this incident; I certainly respect you and your work here, even though we clearly disagree on both substance and style when it comes to this particular situation. MastCell Talk 18:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
concerns (and not just on my part) about the fairness and appropriateness of the sanction; so you go to an article that you know has been a nest of controversy for years, and have previously been blocked for insulting people on. You know it is under restrictions on edit-warring. You also know that it's under an ArbCom restriction, because you added the template to the article talk page yourself. You make three reverts in a couple of days. No BLP or copyvio exemption, just flat-out edit-warring to score some sort of point. What do you honestly expect to happen? -- John ( talk) 00:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
On 4 April 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ray Wilkins, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, John, perhaps you noticed the complaints by me and others at AE about the unusual editing restrictions on
Talk:Ayurveda: "You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked
.
"I've never heard of such a restriction before... Does it mean the article can't be edited at all without going via the talkpage, and WP:BOLD doesn't apply to it, nor our "bias" in favour of reliable scientific sources?"
"I don't think this is a workable sanction" It was actually added by Jytdog,
[8], and I'm not sure where it comes from, but I think from
here and ultimately from you. I may well be wrong about that. Anyway, I propose removing the restriction per the comments from me and MastCell that I've linked to. Would you object to that? I mean, I'd like to remove the whole thing that's outside the edit notice template, including the link to "a number of editing restrictions" in an archive. AFAICS, it's not on to expect people to comply with a whole pretty complicated discussion in an archive, simply because it's linked on the talkpage. As I say, I may be wrong that this is your baby at all, but in any case, do you object to any of it?
P.S., normally, I would offer to replace those restrictions with more ordinary ones, such as the standard restrictions at Talk:Donald Trump. It's just that I have sworn never to put any page restrictions on any pages — I hate 'em all and think they're a mare's nest, though I realize some of them may be necessary sometimes. I could put a note on AE mentioning that I've removed what's there, and invite other uninvolved admins to add what they think may be necessary. Unless you would like to do it? Bishonen | talk 14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC).
I want to thank you once more for your help with dubnium. Now after this review is over, I've got another article I'd want to submit to FAC, history of aluminium, but I think it would be great if you looked through it first and corrected prose if that is needed. The GAN reviewer helped me out with prose a bit, but I'd like to make sure that the prose quality is up to the high FA standard. Could you help me with that?-- R8R ( talk) 07:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
John, can you tell me what "I spoke out for removal of your bit" refers to? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You have a user page at
User:John/sandbox3 that is in breach of
WP:POLEMIC, which states that if the information is to be used in a dispute resolution process it should be "in a timely manner
". This page was reactivated from old information on 6 February 2018, and it is way outside any reasonable definition of "timely". I suggest this is blanked, or better still deleted, before further steps are taken. -
SchroCat (
talk)
13:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you made several alterations to the Nick Drake article, where you changed references to spring and autumn to 'early' or 'late' in the year. Is this to conform with a Wikipedia policy? I just wondered. It's not a big deal, but it occurred to me that where it said 'spring' I would assume that to mean perhaps March, April and May, but when altered to 'early' I would be more likely to interpret that as meaning January, February and March. Dubmill ( talk) 11:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in April! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear John,
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that the
Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors case request has been withdrawn by filing party and archived.
Best regards,
Kostas20142 (
talk)
17:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I know you and I aren't on the best of terms right now, but this is wholly unrelated to that. Your close puzzled me. You put it in the section about ANI, but you also effectively closed the ongoing topic discussion for BB to be banned from ANI and AN with limited exceptions. Nor did you comment on that discussion. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to challenge you also on
John decided a long time ago that citations to theI certainly do not think my view on this is in any way exceptional; a well-participated RfC concluded a year ago thatMirrorDaily Mail are not permitted under any circumstances in a BLP article. His rigid view has not been accepted by many editors.Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.... There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate.(my emphasis) We also have a core policy, WP:BLP, which statesThis policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.(my emphasis) If I am out of line in reading these two very firm longstanding consensuses and concluding that this was a terrible edit, even with WP:EVADE arguably behind it, then I still do not see it. I am perfectly ready to accept critique on the way I delivered the message, but I stand utterly by my judgement that the edit was unacceptable. Thoughts?
While we're on the topic of us rednecks--we put on a damn good show last week in Montgomery, which all of y'all missed but I didn't, and this Thursday morning we're going to the The National Memorial for Peace and Justice. All of us white people need to go. I'm going with a dude who's as white and bald as me (though slightly younger), and we're going to go and be moved and feel ashamed in some ways and ready to #dobetter. The first time you shake hands with a black man who used to be on death row (and every American knows why that black man was so much more likely to be on death row than any white man) and now is free thanks to the Equal Justice Initiative, you don't forget that. I shook hands with a man who used to be on death row two weeks ago. It is a very special feeling. And one of my pipe dreams is to have 4000+ articles called "Lynching of person X" so that it won't be so easy to forget what was done. Sorry, I guess I'm getting carried away. You know both of you are my favorites. John, I don't have to tell you what fatherhood does to a person. Drmies ( talk) 23:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to ask you if the pause with the copyediting was intentional. Again, as I said, there is no hurry, and our project will launch another FAC before that of this article. I just wanted to make sure it hadn't slipped out of your mind.-- R8R ( talk) 12:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, John. Why do you seem to have such an issue with the word 'although' being used in articles?-- Kieronoldham ( talk) 23:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey Edibletabler ( talk) 04:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Edibletabler ( talk) 04:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you have time to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive1? Should be easy after a thorough review by Usernameunique ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, John...I'll begin by saying I am a FA survivor (7x as either nom or rev) so most of what I see when reviewing/editing articles is based on those past experiences...every moment of which I remember fondly, enthusiastically, and with great appreciation for the process and editors involved. I actually enjoy doing it...and that's what brought me here. I've seen some of your comments re: Barrack Obama, and from what I've gathered from some of the war stories I've heard from other editors regarding that BLP, the TE and some of the behavior was nothing short of nightmarish. I'm hoping to tap into some of your experiences for guidance (even though I long ago promised myself to never talk politics or religion, and I blame my work at NPP as the cause for that broken promise). There appears to be some consistency in the style and presentation across the board for articles of past presidents, as there should be when compliant with PAGs. I also realize that we're dealing with Trump's unpresidential personality and flamboyance plus whatever else online media, pundits and his opposition throws at him in today's click-bait economy. I imagine NOTNEWS and Coatrack will remain an issue with that BLP for some time to come. I'm not asking you to get involved in the editing - oh, contrare - but I was hoping you would share your views with me (in an overall summary) as a fellow FA reviewer re: his BLP as a "check-all-systems" for me to gage my own editorial judgment. My focus is NPOV, the quality of the syntax and sources cited for contentious labeling and statements (I've noticed too few other significant views included in the article), and I see an apparent bias or spin and coatrackishness of the article overall. There are instances of stating opinions as facts in WikiVoice, cherrypicking quotes (and omission of material which changes context), and stating seriously contested assertions as facts instead of opinions per WP:REDFLAG. Anyway...if you don't have time, I understand, but I hope you do. Atsme 📞 📧 15:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
|
... for improving article quality in May! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey John. If you have some time, could you take a look at this -
Talk:List_of_association_football_teams_to_have_won_four_or_more_trophies_in_one_season#Criteria. Would be good to get your thoughts on it. Let me know if it's not clear. Thanks --
hippo43 (
talk)
21:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Slow edit war between me and a series of IPs geolocating to Jakarta. I wonder could you protect and/or suggest any other suitable action? Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I noted that you removed a great deal of content on 2016-08-15, I understand the reason is lack of a verifiable source. Is there any way to add this information, which to the best of my knowledge is correct, but would otherwise be classed as original research? 146.169.177.33 ( talk) 15:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying I disagree with all your recent edits, but I do think that the removal of fairly innocuous material about the history of individual prep schools is somewhat savage. It is not the case that all unreferenced material has to be removed; it becomes an issue only when it is promotional or otherwise misleading. Deb ( talk) 07:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi John. I wonder could you move this article name to Third Stream? All 22 instances in the article use upper case for both words. Lower case seems wrong to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in June! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you delete that personal attack on my talk page . Kpgj hpjm 18:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Failed to ping you in my edit summary, but I was in the middle of expanding it, so I kept the version I was working on. I was hoping for it to be in chronological order (going to put the Columbia details in now), but feel free to reorder if you disagree. I will be done in maybe 20 minutes or so on that section. Kees08 (Talk) 20:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I am being ATTACKED - WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT by this person - User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for many months, he apparrently hates me and the visual arts. Please get this guy off my back. Thank you... Modernist ( talk) 15:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Because I don't need to unload on the FAC talk page. Really, I don't. (Thank you for that comment, by the way) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right; I should know better than to call in a mention of good faith in a discussion like that; I'll try not to make that mistake again. I think I was concerned that you weren't being quite fair to Brian, but as I see you've tweaked your comment a bit I've no more to say. Thanks for starting that discussion, by the way; I think it's been useful. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello John. By any chance, could you review the article at its FAC page? The review seems to go fine except it could use another reviewer and the clock is ticking. If you could, feel free to think I owe you something for that.-- R8R ( talk) 13:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles such as North Cascades National Park and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article! Your copyediting saved the day John. While I'd like to think of myself as a good organizer and researcher, prose is not my forte. Thanks again!-- MONGO ( talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi John. I wonder would you care to look at this? Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
High Tatras |
---|
... for improving article quality in July! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi John I see you are a member of the Project Zimbabwe, so you are the right person for me to address. The List of wards of Zimbabwe was mostly put together between 2006 and 2008/9. In the meantime a lot of the information has become woefully outdated, new divisions have been created, districts have been merged or divided, etc., example, Zaka is new. I also found (without actually intentionally looking for such) quite a few names linked to places in other countries or to pages that are not even about any place in the world. Looking at documents such as this and this one gets the feelings that it will be a sisyphean task to update the information; that it might be best to delete it, as it might take longer to verify everthing in it then creating a new one from scratch with new sources. Your appraisal and opinion would be highly valued. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 06:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I've decided to move on and stop holding a grudge against you. Hopefully you'll forgive me too. Anyway, I'm hoping to do some more editing in the near future. I'm probably going to avoid BLPs though since I don't really like editing them and I tend to enjoy working on anime/video game related articles more. Sakura Cartelet Talk 03:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
... for improving article quality in August! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
'However' might be a word to watch, but removing it wherever you see it without regard to whether it is actually problematic is, frankly, disruptive. Where you recently
removed it, its use was not inappropriate. From a structural standpoint it is better at the beginning of that sentence, and I placed it back there, but just removing it isn't improving the article. The source clearly states the relationship between the content of the preceding sentence and the one with the 'however', so its use is appropriate: "Although the acid-ash hypothesis has been widely accepted and broadly stated as the major modifiable risk factor for bone loss in well cited scientific papers [4, 15], as well as textbooks [16], reference works [17, 18], and lay literature, this hypothesis has not been subjected to critical review."
. —
Insertcleverphrasehere (
or here)
06:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi John - regarding this edit where you removed the navbox, what's your opinion regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 12#Template:People's Vote? -- wooden superman 15:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi John! I've got an FAC of mine going on, and there's a comment in it that says, "Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem." I'm somewhat surprised to see this but, even though I will surely try to fix myself what I can, could I ask for your help with this? I know I've been needy lately with my prose but could you please help me? If you can, this will be greatly appreciated! Also, if you want a favor in return, ask right away!-- R8R ( talk) 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Hi! Could you explain why is it unnecessary to link participating countries of the Joint Investigation Team in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Criminal investigation. There is even an internal link of JIT in the lead section pointing to this section. There are no any other links in the whole article where readers can click on the team countries. JSoos ( talk) 13:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
And then there was the help of a friend. Read the rule Wikipedia:Consensus, please.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the consensus favours your position- have you any arguments for this besides the years of your adminship? The history of revisions attests against you.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You could use the fingers on each hand.- I will answer in your style - maybe you will try to use your head to understand what is going on in discussing your edits? It does not matter which terminology you like. It is important that the quoted sources used this, and not another term.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nicoljaus (
talk •
contribs)
23:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
Remembering fondly six years of helping each other, after meeting in sad circumstances. Wink mit dem Zaunpfahl: I have a FAC open (and a procrastinated one, and it's about Time, and time), and just read yesterday thanks for your copy-editing. Could you do that for me, and perhaps even a review? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The article Wilhelm Krüger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
It appears that this is a fake article, because that person never existed : he was confused with Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger at the time of his creation. It has just been deleted from French Wikipedia where it had been copied from English Wikipedia. Please see that discussion page : [17]. Best regards. Gkml
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Gkml (
talk)
16:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, John !
I'm having very unnecessary trouble with another user over a talk-page comment. I think he even removes signatures at his own talk-page. And comes with the most silly allegations I've ever experienced here. Just imagine - if I at talk-page of either
Nicola Sturgeon ,
Mary, Queen of Scots or who ever historical Scottish celebrity (or the opposite of "celebrity"), had came up with missing information and had written "this article is too positive" (too negative if it was about "a bad guy")- would I then be "revealed Anti-Scottish bias" ?
Perhaps , you could have a brief look here
/info/en/?search=Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Ukraine_1920,_Vilnius,_after_1926_a_fascistic_state._Too_positive_tone_for_this_status
And with your admin-tools, perhaps you can see weather this other user changes things not intended to be changed. If possible perhaps you also can have a look at this user's own talk-page. I think he removes signatures and other matters in order to hide earlier notes and warnings, and has even been asked not to do so. And this user is banned from at least one "heavy" topic, according to what he has replied to another user at his talk-page (WW2-polish_matters, I believe). Now he want's me to apologise, see
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Boeing720#Confused.
What to do, I don't know. I just wish to get rid of him. There's no substance to what he writes. And if possible only.
Boeing720 (
talk)
18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
We have a problem with this user on the page Steve Hogarth who keeps changing the D.O.B. to conflict with the date we have a source for. Thanks.
Hello, John. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Miss you. Miss him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Hope you all ok. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Gothic Seasons Greetings |
![]() |
Wishing you all the best for x-mass, and hope all is well. Please drop me a line when you get a chance, as you are missed around here, and I worry. Ceoil ( talk) 18:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
Season's greetings! |
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2019 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive.... Modernist ( talk) 12:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones ( contribs) ( talk) 12:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you for your project help last year! How are you? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello John ! I have apparently caused some awkward error by moving an article to a better name. But I can't get the talk-page moved correctly. I'm very sorry.
Could you please have a look this technical matter ? The article in question is Bridge related and is this one
Benjamin Twos - but then look at the talk-page. I've truly tried. Sorry again.
Boeing720 (
talk)
23:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Got this bit of merde on my talk page just now....
'You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[WP:AC/DS#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic.'
What is this about? Sounds a tad threatening...
Sarah777 (
talk)
00:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
John, I didn't really realise, until a very short time ago, that I had not seen you editing since last September. I do hope every thing is just alright with you. I was recently reminded, by an erstwhile Bournemouth mystic hermit acquaintance of ours, that in the words of our glorious leader Mao Zed Wales we all here at Wiki Narnia have to "march or die". Kind regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)