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)

ships as "she", additional points[edit]

Hello John, if you are going to introduce a "summary" section ("executive" of otherwise), should you not allow comment on it? Any particular concern could have been raised on my talk page (and we could have followed a thread there - I agree with your procedure). I think the whole new section serves no useful purpose, except to expand on your contributions to the discussion on the various proposals, and I think that you should consider removing it. Davidships (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Would a subsection work? --John (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said, at bottom I don't think that a summary of what you think about everyone else's views (or indeed about aspects that nobody had raised anyway) serves any purpose at all. Imagine if we all did that! If you choose to leave it there, in whatever form, it will undoubtedly attract comment. An objective drawing of the threads together would be a different thing and would recognise that there are some, of both persuasions, who are not stuck in their trenches. Davidships (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Every so often in my eight-year career on Wikipedia I see levels of bone-headedness that I could not previously have imagined. That there are people editing an online encyclopedia who do not know what a pronoun is, or do not know what sexism is, or think "political correctness" is something terrible, is noteworthy and interesting and needs to be called out. I caused offence a year or so ago when I called someone's actions "retarded", so let's not use that word. Let's say it is surprising to me that people with such limited minds and restricted life experience are even interested in the sort of work we do here, let alone that they feel able to make demands about our policies and how we interpret them. --John (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Please pardon the intrusion, but I could not agree more with that last comment. From my perspective, the ones that truly scare me are the Editors who are on a "mission" to fix, correct, and/or add "balance" to WP; and in the process do anything but. Granted I have come to appreciate the curmudgeonly, veteran stalwarts like Andy the Grump, but the Users (registered and IP alike) that claim to have a specific purpose come across as some kind of content-wrecking virus. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It takes all sorts I suppose. But there is something surreal about discussing MoS usage of pronouns with people who don't know what a pronoun is, or who think English uses grammatical gender. Oh well. --John (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi John. The banner below always had a hyper link to Reflinks. I used it all the time. Do you know where it went?? Am trying to do the references on Park Mains High School. It has only been like this since today. Thanks mate. {{Cleanup-bare URLs|date=July 2014}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discolover18 (talkcontribs)

Reflinks is gone as of today. I am devastated as I also used it all the time. --John (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
What do we do now then???--Discolover18 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what can be done. Let me think. --John (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's the error message. --John (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
And here is a discussion about what can be done. --John (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Bit of a bummer about Reflinks, I liked that wee thing. If a new thing gets set up. Can you do the links on Park Mains High School and my latest article Erskine Bridge Hotel. I've near completed my Erskine Wiki experience so I may stop hanging around that much.--Discolover18 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be back up as of now. --John (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi John. Any chance you can check an article for us. It should be in my contributions. Its the Erskine Golf Club. Its taking ages for it to be published. Cheers mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Nice work. --John (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bon Secours Home article, again[edit]

A new edit war has developed on the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home article, this time by Bastun. He's now canvassing support for people to help him, and is misrepresenting my edits and arguments as well as misrepresenting what the media sources say: see: Ryn78 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking. --John (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Our friend User:QuackGuru again[edit]

Greetings! It seems that our friend User:QuackGuru is filing ANI -cases on a regular basis. Now, however, he filed a case against three different editors at the same time! This starts to look like a serious misuse of WP Noticeboards. I am asking you to take a look because you are familiar with QuackGuru's problematic history.

It seems that QuackGuru is bringing up some individual edits that he disagrees with, and uses WP:ANI as forum to do it. I have a clear conscience on each edit: all my edits are discussed at the Talk Page and well-explained in the edit summaries, and if I have made a revert (usually somebody has been removing text and sources from the article), I have done it because there haven't been decent explanations in the edit summaries nor any discussion at the Talk Page. This can be clearly seen from the diffs and quotes QuackGuru is bringing up as well.

I think that QuackGuru is using the WP:ANI as a forum for defaming other users who disagree with his edits. The three ANI -cases he filed are found here: Incidents#User:Herbxue_again, Incidents#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_again, and Incidents#User:Middle_8_again Incidents#User:Middle_8_again. I would really appreciate if you could take a look into this. I think misusing the WP Noticeboards and poisoning the well on such forums isn't really nice. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting: administrator Kww also warns QuackGuru on QG's Talk Page about his behaviour[, telling him to consult him first before going to noticeboards. As Kww clearly puts it: "Bringing three people that you are in a conflict with to ANI and SPI simultaneously without some very good evidence connecting the three accounts looks more like a temper tantrum than a serious effort to use our noticeboards properly."
I think this clarifies the big picture. However, QuackGuru has already bringed the matter to WP:ANI, and in case of misuse of the noticeboards, I think it's something that should be reacted to. Thanks for your time John! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. --John (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Context is important. I think that QG is likely right that sockpuppeting continues in alternative medicine articles. I think he's likely right that the editors he has named are, to varying degrees, detrimental to the process of building an encyclopedia. It's his method of argumentation and presentation that is problematic: it's too shrill, and likely to make the reader shut down before considering his arguments properly. If we can channel that passion in a constructive way, we might be able to fix some of the problems that plague these articles.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with all three of your statements Kww. I do have some concern that QG seems not to have learned from a previous block I made on him. I wonder if a time-limited topic ban might be in order? It's apparent that this is all QG does on Wikipedia, and as you say it creates more heat than light. We might be better off with QG editing peacefully in another area than burning out himself and other editors if he continues in this vein. Thoughts? --John (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to take him away from the editing in the area. He serves a valuable role in making certain that the pro-woo editors don't distort the articles, and that's an exhausting task that no one else will step up and do. What I think would be reasonable would be requiring him to get approval from an admin before starting a new SPI or ANI report.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Mmm. Well he can't go on like this. I saw your post at his talk and I agree with what you said there as well. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, his methods are unhelpful and outside our community norms. And I only partly agree with your pro-woo/anti-woo dichotomy; this is not a situation where one's enemy's enemy is one's friend. I prefer a more nuanced approach and I would be prepared to issue another block if QG were to continue his unhelpful editing practices. This would be a last resort if all else failed. Let's go with your idea for now; I think it's a minimum for the sake of our sanity. --John (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the "exhausting task" Kww mentioned doesn't serve as a reason to overlook QuackGuru's behaviour, especially this ANI case in question. In my opinion, all the editors must be treated equally, with same rights and under the same rules.
Especially with terms like "pro-woo editors", I'd be extra careful. Suggesting that one editor (like QuackGuru) should be granted some privileges over WP Policies because there are some "pro-woo editors", that should be absolutely out of question. In my personal opinion, the edits of these "pro-woo editors" speak for themselves: many have already got banned (most recently Klocek and Neuraxis have been under discussion). Hoever, the ANI in case should be taken seriously.
I think it might be best for both QuackGuru and others that QuackGuru's editing capabilities would be taken into full utility in some other areas. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It would probably require a consensus at AN or ANI to make such an arrangement enforceable. I'm at work right now. I'll post something tonight or tomorrow and see if I can get a consensus that he needs mentoring and that I would be suitable in the role.—Kww(talk) 21:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Good offer. I have asked QG not to do any more of this stuff in the meantime. I thought about closing all four discussions but will leave them open for 24 hrs or so in case there is any legitimate discussion to be had. --John (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I find it somewhat interesting that Kww is getting involved with a case concerning QuackGuru again. I think Kww should step back with this. In this WP:ANI -case (again filed by QuackGuru)[1], Kww gave me a warning for ... no reason ever mentioned. The whole case was absurd: I was being accused by QuackGuru for "following him to other articles", without any evidence being presented. Kww stepped in, closed the case and gave me a warning.
In this 3RR -case concerning QuackGuru again[2], Kww stepped in one more time. On my Talk Page, he said[3]: " "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block". Now it seems that Kww is allowing hte abuse of administrative noticeboards for QuackGuru.
Same rules for all editors, I'd say. Is there any reason to make exception here? I appreciate Kww's honesty that he is ""the most sympathetic admin for QuackGuru's cause"[4], though. I think he'd better step aside with this one. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The purpose is to provide QG with a reviewer that he will not fear is attempting to shut him up, but will prevent him from running amok. Note that I didn't interfere with QG's block in the past because I recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate. Your belief that I consider you and Herbxue to be disruptive editors is quite correct, however. You actually should be pleased that I am volunteering to do this: if I approve something to go forward to a noticeboard, I'm pretty much precluded from acting on it directly.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Suits me as long as you are imposing the same rules to all the editors: it doesn't seem reasonable that you are threatening others with indefinite block[5] while being ready to apply different rules to editors "that you feel sympathetic with". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

QG has provided a lot of difs showing some degree of disruption. Do not have the energy to look into it in detail right now. In a topic area with a lot of socks such as these [6] it is amazing that this topic area received decent reviews in this Mar 2014 journal article [7].

Kww suggestion to review QG difs regarding other editors before they go forwards to the larger community I think is a good one. John's previous block of QG for removing comments from his own talk page has gotten a change in behavior, as QG now leaves talk page comments and lets the autoarchive tool take care of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks all for the positive comments. I have never blocked, and will never block, for removing comments from your own talk page. QG had his talk page access removed last time for doing this but the block was for something quite different, as was explained at the time. --John (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how this is going to serve it's purpose. Within a time period of 24 hours, QuackGuru has turned to Kww already twice, proposing two different cases against the very same editor, Middle 8. First, proposing an SPI[8], and second, proposing a WP:AE report[9]. Oh boy... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this what one really was looking for? Up to this point, QuackGuru has turned to Kww 2x more again: suggesting a 3rd case against user Middle 8[10], and now attacking against user Kshilts[11]].
Why is this a problem? For two reasons. First, because instead of QuackGuru himself filing a case - and probably getting sanctioned for the misuse of WP administrative boards just like any other one of us - he is actually able to hide behind the back of an administrator who openly states to be "sympathetic for QuackGuru's cause"[12]. Second, this very admin, Kww, is giving warnings based on what QuackGuru reports to him, without any chance for the one being accused to defend himself/herself. This seems like a conviction without a trial. Here are two occasions where Kww is giving an ultimatum: [13] and [14].
In my opinion, there is a serious need to consider sanctions more severe for QuackGuru. I am convinced that his editing might be a big help in other topic areas, but it also seems that these very alt. med. articles aren't just for him, and might turn out to be too difficult and stressful. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Bon Secours page[edit]

Please see the talk page for 2 edit requests. Trying to edit from a mobile phone is probably a shortcut to insanity. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Will take a look later tonight. Thanks. --John (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Beckham[edit]

I am moving this to Talk:Victoria Beckham, where it can attract a wider input. --John (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi John, just a quick note on this. I changed fashion to couture in order to distinguish from other fashion brands VB had previously launched (jeans, glasses) and her other fashion forays with other brands. I can't call it own brand as she'd previously used her name on jeans and it is technically couture. Fair point to take the quote off in the lede – was possibly making it overlong – but The Independent information, ref and quote about guest editing French Vogue and being in a panel discussion with the head of Parsons NY was an attempt to describe the transition VB has made from not being taken seriously to being taken rather seriously in some quarters. It also goes some way to addressing the banner about info being out of date. Any objections if I write that info back in? Libby norman (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought "couture" sounded rather fancy; as I understand it, it is just a French term for fashion. Can we take this to article talk? --John (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course, but couture doesn't just mean fashion. Haute couture (basically, made to measure as opposed to ready to wear) would be a term for the high-fashion brands, such as Chanel, Versace and so on, and that's the sector her label is in. What about the section you lost from The Independent which brings VB up to date and describes her work with Vogue France and Parsons NY? Many thanks. Libby norman (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Battle of Öland FAC[edit]

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

Peter Isotalo 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. It looks great. I will review it later today if I get a chance. --John (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for copyediting the article! The changes made seem to be nice and good, and I hope you'll continue.

I only have one question. I don't understand the change made for the metal fluorides table. Just for comparison, these are the former and the current tables.

Structural progression of metal fluorides
Checkerboard-like lattice of small blue and large yellow balls, going in three dimensions so that each ball has 6 nearest neighbors of opposite type Straight chain of alternating balls, violet and yellow, with violet ones linked additionally to four more yellow perpendicularly to the chain and each other Ball and stick drawing showing central violet ball with a yellow one directly above and below and then an equatorial belt of 5 surrounding yellow balls
Sodium fluoride, ionic Bismuth pentafluoride, polymeric Rhenium heptafluoride, molecular

Structural progression of metal fluorides
Checkerboard-like lattice of small blue and large yellow balls, going in three dimensions so that each ball has 6 nearest neighbors of opposite type
Sodium fluoride: cubic lattice of alternating sodium and fluorine atoms with no distinct molecules
Straight chain of alternating balls, violet and yellow, with violet ones linked additionally to four more yellow perpendicularly to the chain and each other
Bismuth pentafluoride: arbitrarily long, straight chain of atoms
Ball and stick drawing showing central violet ball with a yellow one directly above and below and then an equatorial belt of 5 surrounding yellow balls
Rhenium heptafluoride: discrete small molecule
Sodium fluoride, ionic Bismuth pentafluoride, polymeric Rhenium heptafluoride, molecular

I must say, I don't understand why the pictures have now two captions, and why they have to be of the same width. Just in case, these captions not seen in the former table were a rudiment when the table was constructed, and since the result seemed nice, nobody decided to touch them. If it were needed, they would be made seen, but they're not, since reader is expect only to realize the fact: the more fluorine atoms per each metal atom, the more likely is the compound to be covalent, which the subsection, in which the table is, tells. It doesn't really matter that sodium fluoride has the NaCl-like lattice. If you think people need to be explained what is the difference between covalent bonding and ionic bonding, we can give short parenthesized notes, that is fine, or maybe even a short sentence in the beginning of the Compounds section (before the Metals subsection). And yes, the BiF5 picture was longer than the ReF7 picture, but the bonds were similarly sized, so the difference was clearer.

But if I'm getting something wrong (which very well may be the case), please explain it to me.--R8R (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair points. Let me think about it. I have restored the previous formatting meantime. --John (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear that :) Of course, take the time needed.--R8R (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For the birds[edit]

Take this to RfC/U or AN/I, please, or just get over it. I am sorry you are this upset by losing an argument. You should probably either take up proper WP:DR measures, or actually leave. Continuing to post as an IP seems unlikely to help anyone. --John (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Editors lost of the needless Mos debate over bird name capitalization were so far Sabine's Sunbird and Chuunen Baka, returned MeegsC (see So long, and thanks for all the fish), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting assertion and it's sad if it's true. Is there any evidence that one particular editor forced them to leave? People leave all the time. I have taken wiki-breaks myself. --John (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Natureguy1980 specifically names SMcC as the reason for his resignation, Chuunen Baka cites "the small-minded and ignorant bullying of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds editors by the MOS gang", and Sabine's Sunbird's final edit was this. (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Evidence? --John (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I saw your question on ANI, and think this is so open. I declared the three Precious, did you know? Just read their statements in the leave notice and their user pages, I can't say any better what made them go. Sad to watch. I translated Invisible Rail ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a tricky one, and it is one I have defended other users against as well. If you and I had a disagreement over say capitalisation, and I decided to leave the project as a result, that doesn't necessarily mean you deserve to be punished. Before enacting sanctions we need to see diffs of misbehaviour, and we need multiple people to agree that it is is misbehaviour. On a collaborative project like ours it is inevitable that people leave sometimes, and a user's curse as they walk out of the door is not necessarily dispassionate evidence. If you want to change my mind, show me diffs of bad edits, or discussions where consensus has been reached. Not the angry words of someone who is leaving. --John (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
(How come every time I check in to Wikipedia something like this is going on?)
I'm intentionally not mentioning the circumstances as the moment the "I" word is used it will limit what Gerda can say, but Gerda knows better than most just how bad things can get when a dispute over style preferences gets out of control, and that if this escalates it's unlikely to end well. Whether or not there's a problem is immaterial—it's not disputable that a reasonable number of well-established users from a wide variety of backgrounds (i.e., not just one editor rounding up their usual tag-team QAI-fashion) believe there to be a problem. FWIW I tend to agree with SMcCandlish over capitalization (when I wrote Aylesbury duck it never occurred to me to capitalize the D), but to deny there are people who disagree is to be wilfully blind. Realistically, the only ways this can end are:
  1. A decision is made to make the MOS enforceable and undisputable. This would be such a radical policy change I don't see how an outright schism could be avoided. (Think how much trouble arose from trying to get a consistent policy on how to summarize information at the top of an article, and article titles are a lot more emotive a topic than colored boxes.);
  2. The MOS is depricated to "suggestion" status and things are determined page-by-page or by local consensus. This would lead to chaos as people squabbled over which local consensus applied to each page;
  3. It festers until it ultimately ends up at Arbcom, where lots of people will waste lots of time talking and then NYB & Co will slap either indefblocks or topic bans on the two noisiest people from each side;
  4. The people involved in the most controversial activity cool down and realize that if this genuinely is a problem, other people will fix it.
(4) is the only alternative which will end well, which means it's the one least likely to happen. – iridescent 2 10:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Nicely put. I vote for (4) and will do my utmost to ensure that happens, inasmuch as that is in my power. --John (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
John... you're normally a very even-handed person on things. But getting on Jim's case while letting comments like "As noted below, the complainant here is conflating wildly different kinds of page moves, just because they inolve animals and he's taken an intensely censorious, punitive dislike to me" stand without any sort of admonishment ... seems less than even-handed to me. If Jim needs to provide diffs of folks leaving the project over something... surely it's even more important that someone be asked to provide diffs for something like the statement above? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Remind me, which editor is being threatened with a community restriction here? Higher standards apply in these cases. Everybody is entitled to an occasional lapse, but I am averse to lynchings, mob justice, and summary trials. --John (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
John. Really? If that comment was isolated ... it'd be one thing. Read the discussions on the bird capitalization issue. I no longer want to even give my input on MOS issues because it's like being bullied and hounded ... one gives ones opinion and then is subjected to endless replies that hector you over and over again. It's not just one editor - but it's quite common at the MOS pages. It's very ... bullying ... to be told by editors involved with the MOS that my specialist knowledge of how things are styled in a subject area is subject to some "specialist falacy" .... but when the MOS needs enforcing ... those same editors turn to specialized sources to buttress their arguments about the MOS. And that's just what I've been subjected to the few times I've stepped into the MOS and tried to take part. If small areas such as BIRDS can't enforce their own little specialized consensus - the MOS pages shouldn't expect to be exempt from that same "small consensus" decisions. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am certainly sorry if you have ever felt bullied or hounded. There's always been a tension between those who wish for localised usage and those who wish to have more commonality across subjects. I expect there always will be. If there are user conduct areas on any side, certainly these need to be addressed. I just hate to see half a dozen folk lining up to castigate a well-intentioned editor. There are better ways to deal with misbehaviour. I did notice that comment you highlighted, and it raised my eyebrows. If there is more of a pattern I would like to see it. --John (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Here from the 9th. And the hectoring, must have the last (and longest) word issue is very hard to quantify with diffs. But it's pretty evident if you look at any of the dicussions. And please do check out the various discussions related to the Bird capitalization issue - they were pretty acrimonious - and unnecessarily heated (perhaps from both sides, but that's generally the tone of MOS discussions - it's like it's cage-fighting and they cannot possibly ever compromise or even see that the other "side" might have valid opinions. Classic battleground behavior, to me.) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see much that is actionable in that diff. Things get heated sometimes. If there is anything else you want me to look at, please highlight it. --John (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Returning from rehearsal: I had my trouble with the believers in the holy MoS on A Boy was Born which they insisted had to be written as the MoS requires, not as the creator wanted it ("To my Father – A Boy was Born – Benjamin Britten – Op. 3"). Another example was Remember not, Lord, our offences. Those are just 2 articles, birds are several thousand. If something is not broken, don't touch it. - I have never provided a diff against a person and am not going to start it now. I suggested (with my bolding): DYK ... that Geistliche Chormusik, a collection of 29 motets by Heinrich Schütz (pictured) appeared in 1648, when the Thirty Years War ended, containing a "plea for peace"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John, I have to say that you asking for evidence above, and then removing said evidence from Natureguy1980's talk page is pretty outrageous. You may not agree with what he's said, but you certainly have no right to remove said evidence and then claim there is none! I'll tell you straight out here that I took a wikibreak specifically because of the editor in question's interactions with me (and others) on this and other issues; I won't name him, because I have no desire to be threatened with a ban, as you've done with others who've named him. But you need to understand that he's combative, he's belligerent, and he seems to feel the need to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with every little thing that flows from his fingertips. I understand he's passionate about his specialty area. I am too. I'm willing to give other editors the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but he makes absolutely no effort to deal collegially with others. And that inflames virtually every interaction he has with many, many others. I know he's been a good, prolific editor, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. But he needs to learn to play nice with other experts, or he becomes one of those who destroys the very thing he professes to love. MeegsC (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. What a lot of misconceptions in one post! Let's start with what constitutes evidence. Evidence would be diffs, links to discussions, or ideally an RfC(U). An anon editor editing someone's user page to say they do not like someone is not evidence, except of that anonymous user's unevidenced opinion. Now, it is time for you to read the difference between a block and a ban so you do not mix them up. I cannot ban anyone unilaterally, but I will block if anyone is habitually making unevidenced negative assertions about an editor, as that breaches WP:NPA. As a way forward I have already pointed you to WP:RFCU. I note that the specific matter has actually been resolved as I understand the editor in question has accepted a ban on making page moves, which is seemingly what some editors got upset about. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
John, Natureguy made the first statement himself; it was no "anonymous user". Here's the diff. And here's the diff where you reverted his comment, saying "that's not how we do things here". I understand completely the difference between bans and blocks; I'm sorry I got the terminology wrong, and appreciate your patient efforts to correct me. Please understand that I'm not upset about page moves. I'm upset about the way this editor treats fellow editors. And frustrated at the lack of any real attempt on the part of those of you "with power" to address that. But I'm learning that that's the way of Wikipedia now. "Sit down, shut up, and if you don't like it, go away." Nice. MeegsC (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Aw I see what you mean, sorry for any confusion. NG posted the comment, I removed it per WP:NPA, someone claiming to be a logged-out NG replaced it, and I removed it a second time on the same ground and counselled them not to do it again. I stand by what I said above but I want to add that I do see your hurt in all this. Your subjective experience is important to Wikipedia. Is there any sort of healing process that needs to happen before you, User:Natureguy1980, and User:SMcCandlish could all work together effectively? Finally, I am slightly hurt that my effort to stand up for our principles of treating each other kindly has come across as "Sit down, shut up, and if you don't like it, go away." Again, if there is some process that I can facilitate that will allow you all to let go of your anger with each other, I would be up for it. --John (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you imagine there may be some way a "healing process" could occur—I would be offended if that comment were addressed to me. Apparently some people do not see what is so obnoxious about the bludgeoning in recent discussions. As I have said elsewhere, there is no diff that shows anything sanctionable—it is the overall belligerence and domineering approach. The evidence is plainly observable in the bird titles discussion but it's not covered by CIVIL or any of the other pointy links. As you say, an RFC/U is the next step, as if people haven't had their fill already. All the diffless whining can be ignored, and content builders can go because they're only DIVAs anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally I'd love to work through this so that all of us could "let go of our anger"—I tend to be a bit of a peacemaker IRL. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever get Natureguy1980 back. I know him IRL, and he's done with Wikipedia, as he feels the culture has become bullying and belittling. And I don't blame him. Read some of those comments in the huge, blazing wall of text regarding article titles—including some quite cutting ones from a banned sock puppet, as we now know. Personally, I gave up the will to live about 3 days in and just stopped responding. I'll put my head back down and work on content, which is what really interests me. But the time I spend here has been vastly reduced, and I'm not sure I see it going back up anytime soon. That many of us feel this way in the project I've been most involved with strikes me as quite sad. And so, so unnecessary. Anyway, thanks for your response; it's nice to know you're willing to make an effort on our behalf. MeegsC (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
John, while the process was on paper due and appropriate, there was a needless amount of acrimony that accompanied it. There are reams of text that go with it...will try to pcik out the key bits to enlighten. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There's comment from Natureguy1980, which may be relevant here, on my talk-page in the thread Another rodeo, I see. I've encouraged him to join this discussion. In my opinion, his question "how is an editor supposed to report bullying if he can't say it's happening?" merits a careful answer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw it. Is it one of these philosophical questions like the sound of one hand clapping? If it's an actual question, it's a very simple one. We have RfC(U). We have AN/I. We have over a thousand admins. If there was actual bullying, it should be easy to find actual diffs. In the absence of such, I am beginning to wonder if we are into WP:DIVA territory. Sometimes discussions go against you and you just have to be brave and move on. I am also wondering if prolonging this in the absence of any willingness to mend fences or move on, is actually helping anyone. I'll leave it open for a short while longer. --John (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, this may the final straw for me. Here are the reasons I (at least, temporarily) stopped contributing: refusal to acknowledge a recurring problem with filibustering (i.e., "walls of text" again and again, obsessive usage of tags like WP:WHATEVER, WP:THIS, WP: THAT, and WP:CODEYOUDON'TUNDERSTAND. Most editors don't know what all those things mean, that they shouldn't have to. (To say nothing of "RfC(U)", "AN/I", and "diffs". They are used by this individual, in my estimation, mostly as a tactic to silence people with whom he disagrees. (I think Cas Liber is working on synthesizing this. Frankly, I don't have the time, and I shouldn't have to.) And now an admin is calling me names. Please explain to me how accusing one person of filibustering is worth of a block, but accusing another of being a diva is not. This is how it seems to work to me: an editor makes a genuine accusation, presents what he thinks is evidence, but the admin doesn't think it qualifies as evidence, so the editor is threatened for daring to bring it to light. That is the issue. (Natureguy1980) (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
PS--Thank you very much, Justlettersandnumbers, for taking my concern seriously. You are greatly appreciated. (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I did not see that this discussion was closed. My sincere apologies. Please do delete the comments added afterwards if it is warranted. (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. I am sorry I am unable to help you at this point. Please ask again in one month if you still need help. --John (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

For the birds?[edit]

In closing, you didn't talk to me, right? What I did was address the person directly, - received a very pleasant response. - "Every editor is a human being" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How sweet. Nicely said. --John (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And where is User:Geometry guy when we need him? --John (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
We don't need Geometry guy if we simply live by the line. (I adopted it for my user page in 2012, and kept it, as a reminder to self.) He was reported missing and replied ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok John, for starters, scroll down to the "Support Option 2" comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_156#Bird_common_name_decapitalisation and look at the comments made to all the commenters - I'll let you come to your own conclusions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


As Echo will already have told you, I mentioned your name at ANI. (no reply needed to this) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

revert over at ANI[edit]


I disagree with what you said. Per WP:NAC, if there is a clear consensus for something (as has happened here), then a non-admin can carry it out without prejudice against them being a non-admin. In this case, there was unanimous support for the ban, and as it required no special tools, per WP:NOTBURO, I fail to see why it was inappropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

See your talk. We are not a bureaucracy, but in this case, following the wording of policy makes sense. Let an uninvolved admin close it, please. --John (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking issue[edit]

Thanks for your contributions. I had pinged you on my talk page so that your name can be visible. As some pages on my watchlist had edits from you, concerning the flagging, overlinking, etc.

Some times, next one(happened two times now) would argue that you cannot remove the overlinking of geolocations, professions, words in daily use, etc. But it isn't it like you are allowed to remove those links whenever you see them? Many of these start and C class articles have 10 or more overlinks. Even a stub has 1-2. If one link has been removed, it has got effect on the page?

Thanks OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Issue is that it has happened at least 3 times that I am challenged by other person for delinking the profession, geolocations or any word used in daily life. I find no rationale in such concerns honestly. What should be done at this situation? You possibly had too. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog)
If people challenge you, you should refer them to WP:OVERLINK which recommends not making such links. --John (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I see this way now. It was basically and technically wrong to make such link from start. Now if an editor had incorrectly written, it must be rectified. Thanks and will be back to you if there are any concern. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Barr & Stroud[edit]

I think your complaint that the addition of a reference for the architect being added, when looking at an article on a highly technical subject which has less than 5 total references, is misplaced and pedantic. ... I have added a ref,... A more CONSTRUCTIVE comment (and more usual on Wikipedia) is simply to ask for the reference or tag on the line... rather than unusefully delete as if the information was incorrect. If you were to apply this approach more broadly you would have to delete most of Wikipedia. Please be proportionate and consider the value of information before simply deleting. A contact pre-deletion saves us both effort--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the onus is really on you to provide a reference when you add things. I will try to help you. Can you give an ISBN and a page number for book references please? Could you also please avoid marking all your edits as minor? --John (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you be more specific on the articles re Minor Edits. Which articles are you discussing? Do you have a problem with my new articles? I think they are well-researched, adequately referenced and of benefit to the Wikipedia reference--Stephencdickson (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I left you an example of the minor edits thing in my last message. The references we can come back to. --John (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rodent copy edit[edit]

Hello again, would you mind copy-editing rodent before it goes to GAN? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I will have a look when I get time. Say in the next week. --John (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Check out Ernest Radcliffe Bond; as part of my IrlProj rating I came across some outrageous pov which I removed. I hope you've got my back on this one ;) Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. --John (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Blantyre Monument[edit]

Can you hook up the following draft for us. Last one mate, I promise. It's in my contributions. Cheers John. --Discolover18 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me have a look. --John (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. --John (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Quality, thank you. --Discolover18 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight timeline[edit]

In relation to your edit [16], you might have overlooked the fact that at the talk page there is currently a discussion of whether the flight timeline is needed, without clear consensus. It would have been more constructive to participate in the discussion rather than to join the edit warring on one of the sides. Thank you for your consideration.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I see, you have commented in the meanwhile. Good.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have started discussion about this in Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI Discussion[edit]

Since no one has done this yet: Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA[edit]

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I will try to take a look. Thanks for your openness to feedback. --John (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad manners (?)[edit]

Hello John! Perhaps You remember me and the Landskrona BoIS article and troubles (in April, I think it was). The article Stockholm has been "downgraded" for fairly good reasons by some other user, and currently isn't of "good reading" status. (Although improved after my initial edits, by some other editors) When I initially removed some stuff which I found un-encyclopedical, this started a discussion with Gavleson. I think he is less enlightened about Wikipedia leads than me. But when I've tried to explain, he has answered with more and more personal comments. Probably on the correct side of the line, but not really called for, in my opinion. The reason I trouble You with this now, is that Gavleson (in my mind atleast) has overstepped "this line" (again very uncalled for) by copy text from my user page (not the talk page), and draws untrue conclutions about me based on that. I've asked him to remove that part from the Talk:Stockholm page. If You do not think this was correct made by me, fair enough. Otherwise I would be greatful for administrational help. I'm not asking for any hard punishment, only (if You agree with me) to tell him to erase the talk-page part which he has copied from my personal page, and the conclutions he makes thereafter. (if he wants to rephrase his criticism, this is fine with me, but not base it on my page) I just think it's bad manners. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. --John (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This was very much appriciated, thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 flags again[edit]

I have undone your edit regarding the flags per this discussion: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 5#MOS:FLAG I am not sure if you saw it or not but if you wish to remove the flags please take it back to the talkpage, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting me know I suppose. There's a great essay at WP:DRNC which ably describes why what you have done is utterly idiotic. Why on earth did you do that? --John (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandal returned[edit]

Hi John,
just advising you that Marcos Casillas (talk · contribs) returned after you advised them on 7 July to provide references for their edits. As recently as 21 July they were adding obviously untrue statements to multiple articles. see here. They edited ~14 different pages, some multiple times. (You're probably aware of most of that as I see you reverted many of them) Anyway, I just fixed their last unreverted vandalism to Arrow Air Flight 1285 from 11 July, see here.

Obviously a vandalism only account. Suggest a block. Don't think I've ever suggested that before, but this guy gave me the s#£ts. :-( . --220 of Borg 13:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've blocked them 31 hours. I don't think it is simple vandalism; I feel like there is a constructive editor in there somewhere. Of course I am famous for being ridiculously lenient. If they come back and continue, please let me know again. --John (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Will do. I'm surprised they got away with it for so long though. They should have had a page full of more warnings. :-\ Only reason I found their edits was I saw an episode of AirCrash Investigations on TV and had a look at the relevant WP page.--220 of Borg 16:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

NLT Unblock[edit]

Hey John, I've placed an unblock on hold for the IP editor you blocked (details here). As I noted on AN/I, I'm inclined to support an unblock, provided it's clear that the editor understand how 'any' threat is problematic to working collaboratively. But I wanted your input first. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Protonk, I have unblocked. --John (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist etc[edit]

Many thanks John - I thought it best I stay out of the argument. I was under the impression that POV terms were not to be used here - I could have called them "freedom fighters". The point that the US and UK "regards them as terrorists" is exactly the problem on en:wiki. I liked your Mandela analogy; the US and UK regarded him as a "terrorist" too! Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, you are welcome. Yes, I can remember when Young Conservatives walked around with "Hang Mandela" badges. --John (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Hi John. If your bored can you hook up my Lamont Farm article. Its only small. Its in contribs. Cheers mucker.--Discolover18 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell, you've been busy! --John (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh I..........if you can mate :)--Discolover18 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again John for all your help and also Luksurl. Mind my article. Your a legend.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It's great. I moved it into the mainspace. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant thanks. I'm sure that's me run out of things to do in Erskine. There's nothing left that's notable enough to write about. Thanks again.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi John. I may need your help with this one. Not today though; about to finish work. Can you check out the talk page for this article. Formakin House I feel a lot of key details are wrong. Just the stuff to do with the name and category of listed building. I was a postie in this area for many years. The info is definetly wrong. I'll send u a message tomorrow about it. Thanks.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Took a quick look. That's interesting; I was a Christmas postie one year when I was a student in the '80s. Look forward to hearing from you tomorrow. --John (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi John. Yeah, just a wee follow up from yesterday. That article is incorrectly named. I don't really know what it should be changed to, perhaps 'The Monkey House' or 'Formakin Estate' (I wouldn't know how to do it btw). Only reason am saying is that I might do a page for the actual manision house and its called Formakin House. That would conflict with this article. Btw I got another barnstar from Luksurl.--Discolover18 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on the Barnstar. I am not sure what to do about this. Let me think about it some more. --John (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah good idea. I'm off work for a few weeks, so I wont be on as much. I may do an article on the mansion house. When or if I do that. I'll ask your advice on the above article. Thanks for what you do. Speak soon.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Enjoy your break and I look forward to reading your new article when it is ready. --John (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Rodent CE[edit]

Almost there? LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was getting round to it. I took a quick look and it looks good. I should finish tonight or tomorrow at the latest. --John (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Done, for now. It's a nice article. --John (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Franzen[edit]

Sorry, I had meant to revert the anon who had deleted the "controversial" bit. Choor monster (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. --John (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Order of Merit of Ukraine[edit]

Ukrainian National Award.png Order of Merit of Ukraine
I hereby induct you into the Order of Merit of Ukraine! Thanks for your work at getting the mess that was Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 into some sort of order.
this WikiAward was given to John by RGloucester on 23:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That's absolutely fantastic! Thank you, I can't remember the last time I enjoyed such an honour on Wikipedia. хорошо, as I believe they say. --John (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Good reading article[edit]

Hello again, John! I would like to have the Trial of Erich von Manstein article examined for "good reading" atleast, if possible. I've only made one tiny contibution (changing the word "lawyer" to "barrister, KC, and Labour MP"). I happened to read it during discussions and changes to the article Erich von Manstein, some weeks ago. I'm unaware of how to, or where, to make such proposals. I presume an administrator or similar needs to be involved (?). Boeing720 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No need for an admin to be involved, unless it's one who loves reading WW2 articles, like me. I will have a look in the next days. --John (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)