User talk:John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A Note on threading:

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

  • If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
  • If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:John/Pooh policy)

Chemistry project discussion[edit]

Hi John, I would appreciate if you could have a look at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Hydride compound article names. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at your proposal. What is the benefit of this proposal? --John (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll summarise what I've explained there. There are two ideas being covered, the first is to direct readers, who are novices in chemistry, to the correct compound, for which they only know the stoichiometry or the component elements; the second is to inform the novice reader that there exist related compounds with the same name as what they might be using to search for (disambiguation). It is thus for practical reasons. On reconsideration, I favour the compromised proposal over the original. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Is there evidence that readers find the current arrangement confusing? John (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is some. A while ago, an editor confused cadmium dihydride, which is named simply Cadmium hydride for cadmium monohydride, and caused an incident. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, Cadmium hydride was, mistakenly, for a long time about CdH/Cd2H2, not about CdH2 where it was supposed to be on (a misreading of the references, I think). You, Plasmic Physics were editing it in that state (and you then likely were evenly confused as all other editors working on it), until later it was updated to be about CdH2. I can agree that this instance is maybe a confusing one, but that is not the same as most of the renamings you suggest on the Chemistry WikiProject - Calcium hydride almost exclusively points to CaH2, no-one will call that material 'Calcium two hydride' or 'Calcium dihydride'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note, that since Cadmium hydrides are relatively rare and unstable, and more of an academic interest, I could see that this article is actually about all possible hydrides, not about one specific. The situation seems similar as the similarly relatively unstable Thallium hydrides in the 'Thallium hydride' article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I get it. Do more metals have one hydride or more than one hydrides? --John (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
All metals have more than one hydride, although, each metal has a most stable/common hydride. The proposal has the intent of being proactive, rather than reactive with respect to disambiguating in the most natural way, emphasising the 'natural disambiguation' policy at WP:AT. The chosen names are legitimate, and as minimally contrived as possible. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As Plasmic Physics says, most metals (not all) have multiple possibilities, but for quite some, only one is the by far most 'normal' one. E.g. CaH2 is the regular hydride, which everyone addresses as 'Calcium hydride' (not 'Calcium two hydride', following the more correct 'Calcium(II) hydride'-name). Sodium hydride and Potassium hydride is the same (where it is near silly to add the '(I)' - other oxidation states than 0 and +1 are excessively rare for those elements). CaH, 'Calcium(I) hydride' exists, but that is an academic rarity (I even doubt if it should get a Wikipedia article). Then you have the metals which have 2 or more 'most abundant' oxidation states (I think to most, Fe(II) and Fe(III) will be the most known one with 2 very stable oxidation states, elements like Ti, V, Cr, Mn are extreme - every thinkable oxidation state is 'stable' enough and most oxidation states lead to compounds of general interest; Sc then again is with a far majority +3, with only minor academic interest for +1 and +2, and most chemists would not even really consider +1 and +2 for those elements), where there is a reasonable chance of confusion and where disambiguation is necessary. Then there are the cases where there are multiple hydrides known, but none of them of real significance (which I feel is the case for Thallium and likely for Cadmium) - all hydrides are just of academic interest, have not been made in significant accounts, and are not used as important reagents for further reactions. For those I would suggest that the article is about all of them, as I feel that the concept of 'the hydride of element X' is encyclopedic, even for the reasons why it is unstable, or to answer the question 'the elements left, right and up, down in the periodic table all have their hydrides, why are these so unstable'.
In short, there is no one hat that fits all cases. I strongly oppose having the article for 'Calcium(II) hydride' at that name, that one should be at 'Calcium hydride' (the name that everyone uses; same goes for diborane, technically the dimer of boron(III) hydride), for elements where 2 (or more) oxidation states lead to notable hydrides, the distinction should be made using the oxidation-state-indicator (following the naming 'element(II) hydride', 'element(III) hydride'), and for some the article 'element hydride' should be about all possible hydrides. No rules, no system, no natural disambiguation, just following the common names. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for explaining. I think I agree with Beetstra that there is no "one size fits all" solution. --John (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

An AfD, initiated by User:Plasmic Physics, of Mercury hydride was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Mercury_hydride. I have responded to that, with the strong suggestion, again, that User:Plasmic Physics leaves naming and nomenclature issues alone for a long time (at least a year or two), and the request that they withdraw the AfD. Please comment there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am insulted that you would so emphatically state that I misunderstand both AfD discussion and nomenclature, without offering an opportunity to defend myself. It completely undermines my credibility with regard to the topic. Please amend your comment in the AfD. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Just calling it how I see it. Do you have evidence that you understand AfD and chemical nomenclature? --John (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
John, that is not how things work. In the outside world it is considered honourable for the accuser to provide evidence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not a court, and I am not the only one to see it like this. AfD is not needed for the sort of proposal you have in mind, and your proposal is out of step with chemical nomenclature. Sorry if this comes across as harsh but you really should avoid this whole area for a while as you are wearing people's patience thin. --John (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that this is not a court, I am considering social norms. And WP:BLAR would seem to direct me to initiate an AfD. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Re topic ban[edit]

Hello John, maybe you remember me from a few weeks and month back, when i got topic banned for vaccine topics. I require now a clarification if this ban means either, QUOTE from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions = Topic ban The user is prohibited from editing either (1) making any edits in relation to a particular topic, (2) particular pages that are specified in the ban; and/or, (3) any page relating to a particular topic. Such a ban may include or exclude corresponding talk pages. QUOTE END As i understand im not restricted to talk pages. I'm asking because i recently edited the page ZMapp, which might include the topic of vaccines in the near future. Am i allowed to edit this page and related pages to the current Ebola outbreak? Since last year, there have been no incidents, involving me related to the topic in question. Thanks, for clarifying this for me. prokaryotes (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where was your topic ban discussed? Before I refresh my memory, I generally think it best not to even resemble someone who is probing around the edges of a ban. --John (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The thread is here.prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. If I were you I would stay well away from anything even tangentially related to vaccines. --John (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
When i appeal this ban, i just post to the ANI board? Thanks for the infos, John. prokaryotes (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. There or at WP:AN. If you've been editing productively and can articulate what you were doing wrong and how it will be different going forward, I am sure you will be fine. John (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Morning John. How you getting on? I'm looking for a bit of advice. On my mobile phone wiki when I search nearby I can see all of my articles come up. However there is two articles that don't show up. They are Lamont Farm and Formakin House. I don't know if I have put the coordinates wrong on it in some way. Its annoying because all the rest work. Any chance you can take a look and see what I'm doing wrong.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Will look later today. Not much of an expert on geotagging though. --John (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither am I. However I done the rest ok. Its annoying. They all show up, just not they 2. Any help much appreciated. Cheers--Discolover18 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps asks Andy when he returns from the Wikimania honours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Meantime I believe I have corrected the former location, but I was unable to do so for the latter. --John (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi John. I just checked again, still no working. The coordinates show on the page but they don't link up to the 'nearby' bit on the mobile app. Very frustrating. Thanks for all your help again though. I'll maybe mess about with it later. Oh I.........can you hit my latest article up. It's in my contribs. It's only small, Normandy Hotel. Cheers John.........legend, thanks.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing, are you able to help with this? --John (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Discolover18: The coordinates look fine. Its possibly a caching issue, at our end (though I'd be surprised after so long. I've purged the pages nonetheless, which might help) or at your end; please see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response Andy. --John (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ReferenceBot, that was useful. --John (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Signature forgery[edit]

I note that you have signed my name, and that of another user here. The page history quite clearly shows that these edits were not mine. According to WP:Signature forgery, "Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden." Please remove this material.

Also, please indicate which of the statements you make in your posts refer to actual words of mine, and provide diffs. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

John I've started this [[1]] I originally didn't include you as you weren't actually a focus but I think this may have changed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgery .. that is quite an implication. The threads were wholesale copied, and the original remarks were written, and signed by both of you, Neotarf and Hell in a Bucket: diffs of the edits of you both creating that thread. At the very worst, it is badly communicated where the edits were originally made (although that is rather clear from the diff as well). Please retract that accusation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite embarrassed for you, Neotarf, that you would make such a crazy allegation. Read the big notice at the talk of my talk page; it's been there for a good many years now. If you post here, you accept the conditions of my talk page. One of them is that I prefer to keep a conversation together. If you are unable to cope with that, do not post here. I see you have asked for diffs, but also deleted the conversation we were having from your talk. Which would you like me to do; reinstate the conversation and provide diffs, or nothing at all? I can do either. --John (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest foregoing that and going to ANI John. It needs attention, you can also see more passive aggressive comments here [[2]]. Given the nature of the forum shopping, repeated attempts to modify discussions no longer ongoing and then bizarre accusations wit may be block time for Neotarf. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(watching, ec) You two, Dirk and John: I think it would be clearer if you notified the "you", because things get misunderstood, today especially, it seems, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
One week later, and I am going to assume that Neotarf has moved on from this particular can of worms. Probably wise. --John (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. I would also strongly recommend that you remove my name from your watchlist. —Neotarf (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I've begun rewriting and writing User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick. It's going to take time but you'll notice that the quote farm has already disappeared in the director section yet I'm told my edits to date are a negative thing by Light show!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Do not be discouraged if some do not appreciate your work, as I do. --John (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dr. Blofeld, Light show is negative about most things that others do. Cassiantotalk 17:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello John,

we´re a punk rock band from germany and we´d like to use part of your Dieselrainbow photography for the cover art of our first EP "Seifenblasen aus Benzin" (Bubbles of Gasoline). The Reason I´m contacting you is that although we are happy to give credit for your photography on the back of our record, we´re probably not able to give credit at other places. e.g. YouTube videos, flyer, merchandise and the like.

That means we may not be able to comply to the CC BY-SA 2.5 license all the time. Do you mind licensing the picture under CC BY 4.0 to us and we put your name on whatever we feel is possible/appropriate? By the way what name should we give credit to, just John? If you want to have a look at the cover or get to know our music, feel free to ask!


Alternativlos1312 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Email me, please. --John (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I would if i knew where to find your email address.. do you mind contacting me at --------- ? Alternativlos1312 (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Misc issues.....two of[edit]

Hi John

Me again...

(1) the archiving of my talk page; who can advise me/help me on that's all going a bit pear-shaped.

(2) Check out Photo Wars at Ongar,Dublin - I'm not asking you to come down in favor of any photo but we clearly need guidance on when/if photos should be replaced. An editor added about 8 pics to a stubbish article and replaced the only pre-existing one - mine!

When I re-inserted my single snap, leaving his other seven intact, be reverted. Now, tbh, neither his snaps (some of them pure s*it, excuse the expression) nor my single one would win any prize in a primary school photo-contest.

But we need some rules here :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a wee look at this in the morning. First reaction is that you have behaved impeccably in the process of BRD. Talk page archiving I do manually and always have done. Any of my talk page watchers got any good advice? --John (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I asked the same thing recently on my talk page. I got this answer. Hopefully it helps.......I personally like using Cluebot the third. Another way is do it manually, usually through cut and paste. This page explains how it's done.--Discolover18 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you were simply ahead of your time...[edit]

I came across a few snippets this evening that reminded me of our recent chat.

From m:Requests for comment/Superprotect rights#Monopoly: "Jimbo at the State of the Wiki 2014 has essentially suggested that if you don't like with the way Wikipedia is handled right now, fork off!"

And from mailarchive:wikitech-l/2014-August/078129.html: "If you, the 'community' do not like what you have, you can fork. At Wikimania forking and leaving the community was very much discussed. Watch Jimbo's presentation for instance, he may be aghast that I quote him here but in his state of the Wiki he made it abundantly clear that it is your option to stay or go." --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It has always been the recommended response to time-wasters and attention seekers with no real or at least verifiable point, to tell them to fork off. I am glad Jimbo has kept up the tradition, although I am not sure in this case that I agree with him. --John (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello again ! The Landskrona BoIS article has suddenly become a hornet's nest on 13 August. I'm mainly asking for advice. Perhaps an other user is far better than me, in evaluating what's of encyclopedical value. But may I ask You which part of the lead section that You would find the better of

"The club is affiliated with Skånes Fotbollförbund and plays its matches at Landskrona IP.[1]"
"Their home is Landskrona IP which is located in the northern part of Landskrona town, close to the beech forest Karlslund. In 1978, the club attracted much attention at the season opening, by making a political manifestation in an attempt to support Swedish shipyard workers. Before kick-off at Nya Ullevi, in Gothenburg where three large shipyards existed, the team unfolded a banderole which simply stated "Save the shipyards".

This became a seldomly appriciated event also among the IFK Göteborg supporters."

In the latter case everything is sourcered in the main article. However here is a source with a picture. Headline "BoIS protest blev historisk" can be translated to "(Landskrona) BoIS' protest become historical" and banderole text "Rädda varven" simply means "Save the Shipyards". There was also a large shipyard in Landskrona, by 1978. Answer would be much appriciated, though I know You're a busy man. Boeing720 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for User:Gryf in this dispute. Are there any other users who might have an opinion on how significant this protest was? Another possibility that strikes me is to move it out of the lead, where I don't think it belongs, and into a better place. --John (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
First thanks for Your reply. Gryf has moved my paragraphs away from the lead. However at the time of the protest, the event got both televison and nation wide newspaper cover, and was days after also discussed from the aspect if politics and sport really should be put together. It has also a chapter of it's own in the clubs history book ("Ett fotbollslags historia, del 2, 1976-1990" or "A football club's history, part 2 1976-90") There are only two such books (fisrt covers 1915-75), but I believe a new history book will be published by Chistmas, as the club is 100 years old. Further recent political manifestations at football maches in Sweden, has brought "the shipyard manifestation" up again, as the first of it's kind. The protest was primarily ment to support the local Öresundsvarvet shipyard, which had 3.500 employees in a town with 30.000 inhabitants. But as there were three equally large shipyards in Gothenburg, the event became seldomly appreciated also by the away crowd. But perhaps less so in Stockholm. (Sweden is a very centralized nation, given its very long north to south extent and different conditions, atleast in my opinion)
Unfortunately we appear to be very few contributers to this article, as You perhaps have noted ? And I'm the oldest. I must presume. "The shipyard matter" is mentioned (including sources) in the last part of the 1970's. And a good lead ought to cover what's written in the article ? The club was also the first ever in Sweden to fire a manager in the middle of a season (also mentioned under 1970's incl sources). It was my intention to begin a "preparing" of the article for a future review. Of cource I realize we are a long way from that, at present time. I wanted to begin with the lead, by erase everything that's not covered furhter down, and then pick brief parts of the most interesting events from what's written further down. (And if possible avoid references in the lead, they must though of cource be given further down) But I asked for Your advice, and hence I will follow it. Thanks for Your time and advices Boeing720 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Could you add the new track to Xigaze?--Antemister (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I will see what I can do. --John (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • also seems to have formed a new alliance with Tebbit who stirs her up and talks a lot of nonsense [about the [Treaty]."<ref>Woodrow Wyatt, ''The Journals of Woodrow Wyatt. Volume Three'' (Pan, 2001),
  • title=Ginny Dougary, '&#39;Norman Tebbit discusses Cameron, loss and multiculturalism'&#39;[[The Times | |date=29 September 2007 |accessdate=17 August 2014}}</ref><

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't know what happened there. I don't think it was anything I intentionally did but I have fixed it anyway, I think. --John (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks (for the advice, in retrospect)[edit]

Hello John. With a few days of retrospect, especially Your first sentence in Your advice have I found to be of personal help for myself. Perhaps not at once, but now for certain. And I hope it can remain in my heart. Sincerely, honnestly and without a single trace of irony - the world doesn't fall apart due to any possible contributions or changes. And for some reason, I would like to put it to You, that I've never been the kind of guy that beats someone that is lying down (a metaphor). I believe You to be a kind man. And once again thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I really appreciate it. I don't always get things right so I appreciate it when someone tells me I have got it right. --John (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
(watching) I see you, John, right much ore often than I come here to say, that's true. How do you like this? Great to have you with us, protecting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ach, vielen dank! Du bist sehr großzügig und durchdacht. Es ist ein Privileg, mit Dir zu arbeiten. --John (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Danke, sehr gut gesagt. - Did you see the new motto on my user page? A friend composed a piece with a similar idea in 1991, DYK? Did you know that a year ago a worded a "motion" that believe would have worked better than what the arbs came up with? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


How come you've been deflaging templates? I don't see a reason in doing so. Seqqis (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION. --John (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my low knowledge of Wikipedia syntax. Hence I must use a full URL. Is this an example of too many icons ?
It's used as an example at WP:ICONDECORATION.Boeing720 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Basically we do not use flags or icons for decoration. --John (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I've compared with the current version of this example, and I fully understand Your main statement. Just a thought though, perhaps some readers don't know that Juventus is an Italian club ? In that way there is some information in the icon, I think. On the other hand some readers might not know the colours of the Italisn flag either... But in almost every article about (association) football clubs, it seems to be standard in "player section" - I could of course mention the "player section" of Landskrona BoIS article again, but also for instance Liverpool FC (randomly chosen). I must stydy the WP:ICONDECORATION more thoroughly. However, if possible, any further enlightment of the border between informational and decorational icons, in light of the topics I've mentioned, would be very appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Like this statement from WP:ICONDECORATION "An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative." - at first seems clear enough, but it still doesn't improve my comprehension in the examples of Zambrotta vs Liverpool FC players section. Boeing720 (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)