User talk:John/Archive 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the glass 'o hooch. "May a thousand camels spit upon the tents of your enemies" & cheers! — BQZip01 — talk 06:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for yours and for the MASH reference. I loved that show. Fly safe and come home safe. --John (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, happy[edit]

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! J, can't remember any disagreements, at least none that stick out!
Thanks! No disagreements with you, and hope for none in the future! --John (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new year[edit]

Hey John, many thanks for the lovely message. 2011 should be the best year yet for us all and for the wiki, happy new year to you - Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too, John. Rockpocket 17:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, John. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Many thanks for the good wishes, John, and I wish you all the best too for 2011. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK[edit]

to say United Kingdom is one of the most viewed and edited articles on the site, is a whole week of full prot really a good idea? Personally, I would have blocked the edit warriors, but that's just a different approach. Oh, and thank you for your new year message, it was very much appreciated. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point. I'd be happy to rescind the protection (or for you to) if the edit-war is resolved in talk. You're welcome! --John (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it won't do any harm to leave it til the morning. I'll see if there's been any improvement then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bambu[edit]

Hello John, can you please explain to me why the version I had previously on the Bambu Rolling paper page required page protection? How is it dfferent then is what is there other then more organized and clear? everything is fully sourced.. let me know..

Best--ArnaudMS (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John thank you very much for protecting that page. Please review the history and block logs, and you will understand why ArnaudMS is so intent on getting it unblocked. Nahome (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but the history I see shows user Nahome making equal amounts of retractions of facts on the page as anyone (PAY PAY, factory, sundrying etc. etc.). One of which outstanding right now, the claim there "was no bamboo wood for paper production in Spain in 1764" and only referencing a amazon.com page. I am not a company rep, just a collector of tobacco paraphernalia. though I am accused of being apart of some company cabal storming wikipedia which sounds like a waste of time to me. In all of the readings, other collector sites, and company page I do not see one link between Bambu then brand and Bamboo the tree. I am not intent on anything, rather would prefer to see a page which is more organized with sections. How is the current "protected" version of this page in any way more factual then this one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bambu_rolling_papers&oldid=405698246? I have referenced everything there, and mostly from sources which user Nahome came up with. I just have translated all of the articles via babble fish, as well as found one of them which was already translated. I thank this user for introducing me to new readings! (you can see on my revision page). As I have maintained all, if you want to use a european trademark registration site link: http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/welcome.html as the only verification of brand origins, one should go change theses companies:

  • Smoking Paper 1923-11-03
  • Bambu 1908-03-23
  • Zig Zag 1908-05-13
  • Abadie 1962-08-11
  • PAY-PAY 1910-01-11
  • JOB 1909-06-15
  • RIZLA 1953-09-12

Hopefully this clarifies my point of view. There are other apsects I would like to discuss but for the sake of time won't get into :) --ArnaudMS (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud this was all discussed already on the Bambu Talk page, there were numerous facts that led to the 1907 year all with clear references that are within the parameters of Wiki acceptance. You posted maybe a dozen or more times things like "everyone knows" which are not facts and can't be used as references. The discussion has only been about Bambu, by bringing in other articles it only serves to confuse the issue. Stick to the facts and to the article in question please. The European trademark office link above only references certain countries such as Spain and GB, you have to go to the individual countries trademark offices (available online mostly) to search for the older marks. This was done for Bambu and the 1908 is the oldest mark, which matches very closely with the 1907 year of foundation as stated in the reference book and University of Barcelona History Dept articles. Nahome (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The European trademark office link above only references certain countries such as Spain and GB".. This is not true. You have to look further at your own reference before you make a hasty reply. The trademark view site searches almost every country in Europe. (Latvia, Estonia, Benelux ?, Poland, Slovakia, Malta, Cyprus, as well as all the main ones as well.. I am not saying everyone, knows, I am applying your own logic to my argument. --ArnaudMS (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IS there any response to the comments I have listed above so we should understand where page stands moving forward. Also, I have noticed Bambu no longer makes Flavored papers (for a few years now). In one of the revisions a way back this was included in the the page , along with links to the FDA page which shows Flavored components of a cigarette are banned. At the very least of changes there last sentence should be removed. As well thoughts on a page with sections page? link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bambu_rolling_papers&oldid=405698246? --ArnaudMS (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll try to respond in article talk. --John (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello . I am mostly happy with the current version orange mike has created. But just got your message on my page, and doesn't seem like you have read one thing I have wrote on your page or on the talk page. If you think my comments are one sided, I think you should talk a look at the other side.. Not everything can be reference from Websites and online. They are many things which have been swept under the carpet here, all I am saying is the "company traces it origins to paper making factory in Alcoy Spain from 1764".. most of the oldest companies is the world have change names, ownerships, merged many times.. This doesn't mean each time you have to start a new establishment date. Does this not make sense to you?

On another note, now that Bambu has been singled out on world's oldest companies page, I think the rest of the list should go through equal scrutiny. --ArnaudMS (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, after you warned ArnaudMS and others also warned him that if he inserted the 1764 year again without a verifiable reference, he'd be banned, he is still inserting it. Please see [[1]]. Please ban him - he is clearly a promoter, if you read his posts I don't think I've ever seen a more classic case of COI. Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Waugh[edit]

Hi. You recently made a number of edits to the Waugh article. I accept that your intention was to improve the text, but I think your changes had, if anything, the reverse effect. In places they made the prose flow less well, and your inexplicable aversion to "seasons" made the timing of some events less clear. The word "Zeitgeist" is in every reputable English dictionary, and is widely used within the English language. You are entitled to your stylistic preferences, but as the article had just completed gruelling WP;PR and WP:FAC processes, I think that in the absence of palpable grammatical or usage errors, the prose as approved in these reviews should be allowed to stand, so I have changed it back. If you think this action is unwarranted I'll be pleased to discuss the matter further on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about your edit. I couldn't disagree more. It's a mystery to me how articles get through our FAC process riddled with poor writing like this. I'll go and argue it out at article talk. Sigh. --John (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply[edit]

Thanks for your note. I wanted to leave you a message about the changes my edit made to the items in the infobox but I was late for dinner with friends. I'm glad you figured things out. I thought that might happen after you looked at what my edits (as opposed to the ones made earlier) actually did in the infobox. There is never enough room in an edit summary to explain everything so thanks again for the followup on your original message and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello You have been accused of Sock puppetry at ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ebionites regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have actually been accused of being a sockpuppet of me, not of being a sockpuppet yourself. But, yeah, you should be aware of the allegation. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Almost five years and 90k edits and this is my first time of being accused of being a sock. --John (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for implying that you are a sock. Ovadyah (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, no harm done. --John (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your specific input on the substance of the controversy, however, on the article talk page, Talk:Ebionites, would be welcome. I think that there may well be several policy and guideline matters which might be resolved by an informed long-time contributor familiar with content and conduct policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Carroll's Hatter[edit]

John, may I ask you to give an administrative look at Talk:Mad_Hatter#Rebuttal_of_the_opposing_application_of_WP:COMMONNAME? Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. I took a quick look and formed a preliminary opinion a few hours ago and I will try to comment there soon. --John (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the slow response. I hope your opinion is "move to The Hatter" of course. -- Evertype·✆ 10:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was the consensus I discerned from reading the discussion, so that is what I did. Take care. --John (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world did you find such a consensus in that mess of a discussion? Powers T 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately it wasn't all that hard. Would you like me to write an extended rationale? --John (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. I saw nothing remotely resembling consensus. - Eureka Lott 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It will take me a while as I am busy in real life but I will get to it in the next few hours. --John (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that the argument was won, and that no counter-argument at all was offered. I thank John for his acumen. -- Evertype·✆ 00:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Just yesterday you said that there was no consensus. - Eureka Lott 01:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I hope the explanation I gave makes some sense. On a personal note, and not to sound too self-pitying, may I point out that this determination which I was asked to do in good faith and which I undertook in good faith as a volunteer, took several hours of work to do all the reading and think about it properly. In return I got no thanks whatsoever, and two rather nippy comments above for my trouble, even though it's my fifth Wikibirthday and all. Oh well, nobody ever accused Wikipedians of being gracious. I love you all anyway, and here's to the next five years of thankless and gritty unpaid work. Cheers! --John (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you John, Happy Birthday John. I appreciated your explanation, and it was with such rumination over the discussion that I hope others will see fit to accept that conclusion of consensus. I will not however be paying you. :). Good faith to all. Sswonk (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks to you, and to Evertype who did thank me above, I just overlooked it in my maudlin wiki-mood. It was slightly tongue-in-cheek anyway. --John (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Thanks for providing your rationale. I can't say I agree with your assessment, but I respect your opinion and do appreciate that you spent the time to explain your thought process. - Eureka Lott 08:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that's nice of you. I have asked another admin to double check my work as I always do if an admin decision is challenged, and especially as I have not closed that many move requests. Done a few though, but no harm in a second opinion. Cheers. --John (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thank you again, John, for the rationale you gave. -- Evertype·✆ 09:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, thank you for asking me, it was an interesting case. And sorry for overlooking your previous message in my moan above. I love it really. --John (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Holbrooke[edit]

I changed the statement on Richard Holbrooke's page that his original surname was Goldbrajch, citing his father's naturalization records as the source and someone keeps on removing that fact. In reality there are additional sources of the Goldbrajch surname. When Dan Holbrooke visited his in-laws in Buenos Aires in the early 1940s he indicated his name was Goldbrajch. Dan was a docotr and some medical reference works show the Goldbrajch naame.

Please put back the Goldbrajch fact!

````Gary Mokotoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryMokotoff (talk • contribs) 15:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we need better sources per WP:V. --John (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What better source can there be other than a U.S. government document signed by Dan Holbrooke. This facts on the document were the basis of his becoming a citizen of the United States. GaryMokotoff (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Gary Mokotoff[reply]

See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. --John (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with the term primary source. I am a renown genealogist. Check me out on Wikipedia. :>) Dan Holbrooke's naturalization records are a primary source. They were filled out and signed by him. GaryMokotoff

See All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. --John (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatter[edit]

Sure! I've now taken a look and read through the discussion. The "oppose" comments mostly seem based on an interpretation of WP:MOSTCOMMON rather nicely torpedoed by Sswonk (or, in some cases, even less useful arguments) and can thus mainly be discounted, although some of the supporters of the move should also remember that it's a consensus-based process rather than a vote. In any case, I would have come to the same conclusion, with similar arguments as to why it is an appropriate action. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday![edit]

Thank you! --John (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George H. Moody Middle School[edit]

See the talk page - I'm not sure what there is about that article... must be something in the water in VA! Maybe I'm missing something, but:

  1. I don't see any language in the article asserting notability in a meaningful way
  2. Key references are self-published
  3. I didn't think middle schools got the automatic "don't CSD" nod, the way High Schools do (not that I was proposing a CSD - I simply agreed with B. that a merge might be appropriate).
  4. I didn't think there was a requirement for editors to search for reliable sources of notability as part of the process of discussing that they're missing from an article (at least, that seems to be what was being, well, demanded, by another editor).

I'm genuinely confused as to the last point, which is why I'm bringing it up here. Thanks in advance, JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this page his only minor problems. Please consider this. Maybe understaning this "Dirty-water" VA will help you implement your strategies for making for a better Wikipedia. Many thanks in advance. 74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to article talk. --John (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on the sockpuppets. Based on the timing, I was thinking they were all WP:SOCKS, playing "good hand, bad hand". Before I could file an WP:SPI, you did - thanks! Now that all three named accounts have been confirmed as socks (and "no comment" on the IP, hmm...), it is really dumbfounding. Looking at their edits and talk page comments, it is hard to understand what they were thinking, but at least part of it was WP:TROLL. JoeSperrazza (talk)
Thank you! I am inclined to agree with you, and more fool me for falling for it. Oh well, there's no fool like an old fool. Things should smell a bit sweeter without all those socks. --John (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie[edit]

We've had our differences in the past John, but I'm really pleased that you're getting involved with Maggie's article. Although we may disagree in the future about other stuff, working together on improving articles is what the project is really all about.

I've not been to the library yet for any biographies, so until I do I probably can't do very much more with the article, but I'd really like to see us get it back to at least a GA, and that's going to be my goal. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the note and I am enjoying working with you on improving the article. It is already looking an awful lot better than it was. --John (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I look back on my wikipedia "career" with a little bemusement, and there are perhaps some things I would now do a bit differently, but that's water under the bridge. In my own defence I doubt that many editors who've actually worked with me would be baying for my blood, as so many who haven't do. Anyway, back to getting rid of that ugly pov tag. I just hate those tags. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Points well made. I think the POV tag could pretty much go as we have addressed most or all of the points ONiH made in talk. I asked him in his talk to take a look; I would give it another 24 hours or so and if nobody objects we could just take it down. Thanks again for all your good work on the article. I plan to cull more material from the Marr book this evening for the Legacy section. Cheers, --John (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the longer answer that your comments above deserved. I have felt terrible about how I reacted to what seemed like your arrogance and bluster back in the day; for some reason you always seemed to rub me up the wrong way, as I think perhaps you and GTB have done to each other more recently. Shit happens. I am happy to repeat my whisky-backed apology to you from Hogmanay for any offense I have ever caused you. We all care passionately about this project, and it is natural for passionate people to fall out sometimes. I think in many ways you and I are rather similar; bright, serious, hard-working, well-educated people with a tendency sometimes to get prickly when they feel others around them are not giving their contributions the value they think they deserve.
I said a long time ago that I would never take enforcement action against you as an admin and that obviously still stands. I have never had any question about your exceptional writing skill and work ethic, and it is good to see that has continued at such a high standard. I bear you no grudges whatsoever and I have loved working with you to make a very poor article on a very important subject better. It will get better still. Thank you for correcting my schoolboy error with the hyphen by the way. Duh, as they say over here. After I have finished mining the Andrew Marr book I will start on The Economist to which I have a membership. I bet they will have loads of good stuff.
We aren't supposed to have friends or apply favors for them here, but nevertheless I hope, next time you are in trouble (although of course I also hope there won't be a next time), you will consider coming to me for help if you feel you need it. Of course none of the above precludes the likelihood that we will again find ourselves on opposing sides (in RfA perhaps) in the future. Good working with you, all the best, --John (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What do you think about nominating Maggie for a GA review? Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm no less "arrogant and blustering" now than I've ever been; as I've already said in a few other places I realised that I was replaying old Parent-Child scripts. But you're not my parent and I'm not your child, so problem solved. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be great; the more the merrier, as you said to me. Regarding parent-child scripts, I remember we studied transactional analysis at teacher training and I got a lot from it, particularly from Games People Play by Eric Berne, though it is slightly old-hat now, as is Knots by R. D. Laing. Without aligning 100% with any of these paradigms of human behavior, I would say that any system which helps people understand their own and others' needs, norms, triggers and taboos is to be commended. Even astrology. Even Christianity. --John (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laing was a nutcase, I found Knots incomprehensible. I think we each have to understand how we react to others, and try to fit it into some kind of a pattern, whether that's TA, astrology, or whatever. It's not about you understanding me, it's about me understanding myself. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, indeed a truism, that we cannot directly control behavior of others, only that of ourselves. Being a parent and a teacher has taught me this more than books ever could. To model the behavior we wish to see in others can be tough but it is the only real way forwards. On Forgiveness by Richard Holloway (easily my favorite modern religious figure) is a more recent book I've found helpful; ultimately the benefit of forgiveness falls to the forgiver and not the forgiven, and thus forgiveness is not an altruistic act but a pragmatic one, and we must understand and forgive ourselves before anything else can happen. --John (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all religious, although having been brought up as a Catholic I share the guilt that all Catholics feel. I'm a confirmed anti-theist; I don't even believe in the idea of God, far less the existence of one. For me, only your God can forgive, the best I can do as a mere mortal is to forget. Anyway, back to work; shall we go for a GA nomination? Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was brought up as an atheist (which makes me highly unusual in this country!) but pick and choose pearls of wisdom where I can. I love Holloway; he stood down as Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh over the Church's attitude to homosexuality and now describes himself as an "after-religionist". I think with a few nips and tucks the article is easily GA standard. Would you like me to make the nom? --John (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. I think it's just about there now, and I'm sure we can sort out anything that comes up in the review. FAC will be a bit more of a challenge though; are you up for that? Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Oh yes, of course. By any means necessary. --John (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the GA reviewer the only thing I'd be complaining about now would be the two Encyclopedia Britannica citations, which we really ought to replace with something better. We're still a way off FAC yet, but this is now a GA for my money. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to take one more good look at the article and to do that I need to step away from it for a few hours. My impression last time we spoke was that we had answered all but one of the concerns and that was the tone and how to personalize some of the coverage, to reflect that this is an article about a person, not a government, not a country. I don't have any immediate answers but I will try to come up with something in the next few hours. --John (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th[edit]

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

GA Margaret Thatcher[edit]

Thank you for nominating the article. I have placed it on hold and am looking forward to working with you. Racepacket (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, likewise. --John (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have comments on some more items and would appreciate your help. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look tonight, PST. --John (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded. Racepacket (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Maggie's got her little green icon back. Delisting to relisting in less than two weeks. Congratulations to us! Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that was some fantastic work you did. I ec'ed with you; I was going to add:

Thatcher always resisted rail privatisation and was said to have told Transport Secretary Nicholas Ridley "Railway privatisation will be the Waterloo of this government. Please never mention the railways to me again." Shortly before her resignation she accepted the arguments for privatising British Rail and her successor John Major implemented it in 1994.[1] The Economist considered BR privatisation to have been "a disaster".[2]

What do you think? --John (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good, well worth adding. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will add it. Thanks. --John (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Marr 2007, p. 495
  2. ^ McAleese 2004, pp. 169–170

The Signpost: 17 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010[edit]



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your apparently inadvertent error[edit]

Please review the record. I think you'll see your mistaken. sorry for the bother.72.5.199.254 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add that, if one takes your comment, "Please don't move or alter others' comments in talk. Thanks." and considers Parrot's as well, "I was responding to John, please don't fuck about with my comments" One wonders why you and Parrot have moved my response to you.
My comment, in which I responded to you was placed as I intended it. I did not move or alter anything. It was Parrot who moved my response to you. It was not I who "fucked" with comments at all. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note, Parrot has made a habit of moving my comments not just down but sometimes to the bottom of several discussions now. This is hardly his first action in this regard.72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to pollute another's talk page unnecessarily but that is a rather blatant lie, "hardly [your] first action in this regard", and I'll thank you to stop it. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Parrot is now engaged in yet another all out edit war without even attempting, once again, to discuss the issue. Have I somewhere missed the section in WP:OWN in which Parrot alone has special privileges here at Wikipedia? Or is his ownership limited to that article?72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Guys, I am not interested in personalizing this dispute. 72.5, as I observed at your talk, you have an unfortunate manner sometimes but hey, who doesn't? Please let's just deal with the content issue at the article talk. --John (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all I'm trying to do is improve the article and interact professionally. My question to you is, will you now correct your error? Your action, and your edit comment - coupled with Parrots, leave no misunderstanding as to what is proper. "Please don't move or alter others' comments in talk. Thanks." from you, and this from parrot: "I was responding to John, please don't fuck about with my comments"
I would appreciate my comments, intended as placed, to not be "fucked about" and neither moved nor altered. Is it too much to ask that I be given the same consideration you both demand with force?72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or is there one set of rules for friends and family - and yet another for the little people, us apparently second class citizens unwise enough to object to student essays and refs that preface their comments with a clear statement that they don't know and are only guessing?72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I am not going to get involved in any pre-existing personal dispute but am instead focused on improving the article. I strongly suggest backing off and avoiding each other. If you insist on continuing or escalating this dispute after the content issue has been resolved, you should be aware that investigating admins look at the conduct of complainers as well as that of the accused. Please just let it lie and walk away. --John (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did involve yourself - and it was your conduct, your edit, that I was questioning. You stated, "Please don't move or alter others' comments in talk. Thanks." I merely pointed out that I was the one whose comments were altered. I asked you to correct your error. You then suggested that if I continued to question authority and seek proper redress I was at risk of being administratively harmed. I'll suggest here that threats, especially when used to intimidate victims of your own poorly considered actions, do not befit the project and reflect negatively on the character of someone entrusted to impartially administer here. We are all expected to consider our own actions, and correct ourselves when mistaken. Ignoring the problem by redirection and intimidation is never acceptable, not by the cop on the beat, and not by the man entrusted by the community with the mop. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers FC, sectarianism, blah blah[edit]

Hi John, looks like this has cropped up again. User:SeekerAfterTruth has had a go on my talk page, and I've taken it to ANI. It would be worth taking a look at the article and discussion if you have the time. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw SAT got blocked; that was for the best. Keep me in touch with this in case I forget about it. Thanks. --John (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully he tones down the insults when he comes back - I think he may contribute more constructively, given some comments he made just before he was blocked. Take a look at changes I made to the Rangers article, which were quickly reverted. I added some material on their signing policy, with lots of sources, but it was predictably removed without any clear objection. --hippo43 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at Celtic F.C. if you have a chance? I've made some changes which have caused some friction. I'd appreciate your take as an editor as much as an admin. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to take a look at this, though it may not be immediately as I am somewhat busy in real life. --John (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query about block[edit]

User:John, out of interest, by what mechanism were you alerted to my diff in the first place? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 7 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amberastar[edit]

John the edit I am making to Alan Watts page regarding the creation of the podcast is not for spam. I am the creator of the podcast, and this is constantly being removed or wrongly credited. I added the external link as a citation. Why can other external links be there and mine can't? Thanks for your help and understanding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberastar (talk • contribs)

See WP:COI. --John (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Boyd abuse allegation at Loretto school[edit]

I have supplied a NPOV edit of your contribution here John and made a comment about it on the talk page. I'm quite happy for you to blank it but I'm not prepared to allow you to name and shame the teacher involved as Boyd did. A big deal? Well so you say but I missed it at the time and it was not until I was asked to pen a few words on Vikram Seth's A Suitable Boy a couple of years later and I made an internet search that I came across cousin Don's cri de couer. I was absolutely gobsmacked by it and immediately phoned my sisters to tell them about it only to be told they already knew (presumably via Don himself) and had never mentioned it because they thought I knew all about it as well (with the strong implication that they had assumed I was somehow involved) which gives you an idea of the kind of nuisance this article must have provoked in many families. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in reply to your message to me: Don't be silly John. You've reverted a quite correct remark that the original article was coincident with the premiere of 'My Kingdom' (it actually notes it at the bottom of the article). I shall give you a day or two to reflect and then revert. I would much prefer you to blank the whole reference. It is very far from notable. I do wonder at you lecturing me when you were happy to name and shame the teacher involved. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

Hello John, a very warm welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors. We are pleased to have you join us!

To start, you may want to copy edit an article from our Requests page, or pick one from our backlog. If you need any assistance, feel free to leave a note on our talk page, or you can contact any of our coordinators. If you are new to copy editing, you may want to join our Mentorship program. You may also want to participate in our Backlog elimination drives. Below, you will find list of useful links for your convenience.

Thanks again for joining the Guild, and do make yourself at home.

– Your GOCE coordinators: Diannaa (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs and Slon02

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike/editing war tag.[edit]

Hello John. I'm currently at 3 reverts over at the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. I have engaged IQinn on 3 different threads, The articles talk page, the original research noticeboard and the reliable sources noticeboard. I have practically begged him to provide a link that back his assertion that this was 3 individual attacks, which he has not done. His editing has been incredibly disruptive and amazingly non-productive. I wont revert again this evening, however I don't believe consensus is possible with this editor. Any suggestions would be welcome.V7-sport (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V7-sport is now WP:WIKIHOUNDING me like on this page here and multiple multiple other pages. With the justification i am a supporter of jihad: ""This is made more disturbing by you exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad." he said. What alone is already a reason to block him apart from shouting, disruptive editing, out of context quoting, ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. That is disruptive and leaves no time to keep up with the real issue. He also breached the 3RR rule and keeps edit warring despite he had been warned by you 10 minutes earlier. IQinn (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert a talk entry?[edit]

Please tell me why you reverted my revert on a talk page? (Tcla75 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with Tcla75. Their comments do appear to be (largely) a valid criticism of the article, and particularly Wikipedia:Systemic bias.
Tcla75, I advise you to read WP:SOAPBOX, and to avoid referring directly to another editor (ie "Why did you remove..."). Possibly though, some of the rest of your comments could be restored. I'll check back - please be a bit patient. Thanks.
John, please can you clarify this specific removal? [2] I may be misinterpreting, but I don't see any reason to rv. I accept, at present, I may not know the whole story. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same for this, removed by Acroterion (talk · contribs), who has now blocked the user. (I mention this right here, to avoid the thread spreading around unnecessarily).
I can understand why you both might consider these comments on the talk to be a little bit controversial, but I also note that, to some extent, they are reasoned criticisms of the article, followed by frustration by the user. A block for that seems harsh. But I'm interested to hear what you both say about it.  Chzz  ►  15:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to his posts, the editor was not particularly interested in improving the 9/11 article: he was trying to make a point about an unrelated article and was edit-warring at 9/11 to do so. The discussion of "terrorist" could be valid if it hadn't been discussed in terms of gaining leverage elsewhere, and logging out to continue was not appropriate (I'm aware that MediaWiki 1.17 has been kicking people out n a regular basis, myself included, so I don't worry about that so much). It's a clear violation of WP:POINT. As always, anybody can change any block I make, but I don't see evidence that the editor really is concerned with 9/11. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I take your...ahem...'point'. I think I'd have given a warning, not blocked; but I appreciate it is a judgement-call in that specific case, and indeed there is little evidence of a genuine wish to develop the article. Fair enough. They can appeal and explain. Thanks for replying; I'm quite happy to accept the reasoning you gave.  Chzz  ►  16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have appealed, and I'm discussing it with them. Hopefully, we can work it out. Acroterion (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both for taking this on. --John (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation was productive and the user is unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great; thanks both. Nice work.  Chzz  ►  19:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McEwan[edit]

John, were crossing over on edits on Ian McEwan, but its concidence. You might rember we had hard words a few months back, but thats old, your fine by me, and this is just chance in case it sems otherwise. Ceoil 19:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries man, thank for the note. No hard feelings from this end either. --John (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John, appreciated. Ceoil 19:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persons convicted of fraud[edit]

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use your Durban Sign 1989 Image[edit]

Hello, I'm new to writing anything on Wiki, I hope I'm doing it right - A friend (let's call him Bob, because that's his name!) would like to produce a small run of books as a project (i.e. not for profit as far as I'm aware), and would like to use a copy of your image File:DurbanSign1989.jpg (I think that's what it's called - It's a sign on a beach written in different languages).

Can you tell me if he's allowed to do this? I can put you in touch if you need to talk to him.

91.104.79.215 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


FriendOfBob (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Bump FriendOfBob (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by email. --John (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edison[edit]

Your date-format changes at Thomas Edison are not supported by WP:MOSNUM, as you indicated in your edit summary. Very cagey of you to include many good, solid edits with these format changes to make them more difficult to revert (meant in a nice way). The formatting should, for the most part, be reverted (some dates were not formatted correctly) to reflect the most-used format of day month year (no punctuation), don't you agree? That format appears to be the starting format of the page, and is therefore in accord with the MOS.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest raising this in article talk; as an American subject I think Edison would normally be a month day, year case. See you there. --John (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about where this should be raised. I just thought I'd bring it here first to get your thoughts on it. The nationality of the subject is no longer a criterion in the MOS, btw. You changed several access and archive dates that were in the correct format no matter what the other date was (MOS:DATEUNIFY). And "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. . . ." You really shouldn't have changed the date formats. This has been raised on many, many Talk pages before, to include Edison's. There should not be a need to do it again. But if you really want me to, I shall be happy to oblige.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  13:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Go check the MoS. --John (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011[edit]


Re Third Policeman edit[edit]

Hi John, apologies I'm a wiki novice. The edit I made was not advertising as I see it. I get frustrated as all artists do that people misunderstand or fail to pick up on some of the allusions in some of my writing, that's why I linked the TP page to my lyrics for evil brother. I don't know if you spotted it but all my music is released freely under cc...I never advertise or use PR, my music is free. Lastly I'm a Brian O'Nolan scholar, my thesis was on Hiberno-English dialects and idioms and O'Nolans writing was at the centre of the modernist part, I've also written several critical essay on his other works, my favourite being ABB. Perhaps you can suggest a suitable wiki entry to replace the excised version, I would appreciate that.--Falconio78 (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow response. You'd need to show third-party coverage to even be considered for a mention here. Can you do that? --John (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries thanks for the response, when you say third party coverage I presume you mean reviews / articles pointing to the link between the two - there's none to my knowledge. This was one of the reasons I though a wiki ref might be a good idea, it's frustrating. Well I guess if it can't be it can't be. Not to worry.--Falconio78 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine[edit]

is going to be submitted to FAC (I am not part of it), and my intuition is it needs much work on the prose. As I understand, there is no native speaker among those who were working on it recently. If you have time and wish, please have a look at it and fix whatever you see. If it becomes obvious that the article needs more than just brief fixes and is not ready, please post a note here. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. --John (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by tag comment[edit]

Without opining on the use of the tag, the tagger immediately posted this section on talk. Talk:Bradley_Manning#Manning.org_link. I do believe at least your stated reasoning that it was drive-by withouft comment on talk is mistaken.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. There are actually quite a number of issues with this user adding the tag, which I may go into later. Meantime I stand by what I said; I have also removed the link for now. --John (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not contesting the possibility of other issues. If It were me I'd comment in that talk page section with clarification, but that's up to you.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I probably will do. --John (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C.[edit]

Hello John, we all at the article at Manchester United F.C. managed to work out the issue, and there will be no longer dispute about the related issue. may you please open the article back to the protection it was few days ago, thanks in advance.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for (simple) editing assistance[edit]

John -

Thanks for contacting me; I'm new to wikipedia, as you know (not even a year on board).

I'm having some difficulties with some of the "alternative" citation/reference methods; I'm not finding the info I need at the usual webpages. Who can I ask for remedial information, without annoying someone?

Here's an example question: How do I use the cit/ref system used at the Emily Dickinson page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Dickinson I can establish say "Wolff p. 55", but how do I link it to the reference (author/title/publisher/page)?

So far the editing methods I've use at other pages are discernable from looking at the edit pages and fooling around with them on sandbox; can't figure this one out. --Mysweetoldetc. 19:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011[edit]

"Grammy nominated" in the lede/first sentence[edit]

Hi John, can you please point me to a rule that states we should not mention things like this in the lede/first sentence? --Garik 11 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a rule as such, but it looks like an example of WP:PEACOCK, especially without a cited source. It would be better in the body of the article than in the lede. --John (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chernobyl[edit]

Hi John,

I have started a new section on the Chernobyl Disaster effects discussion page, and would invite you to respond.Leor klier (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you title this section "Battle of Chernobyl"? --John (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is the name of the documentary referenced in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leor klier (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got you. I will comment in article talk. --John (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't sentence me to more Iqinn, that's cruel and unusual.[edit]

I posted an answer to your post here: Talk:July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#A_journalist.27s_commentary_on_a_comedian.27s_commentary_is_NPOV_here.3F.— Preceding unsigned comment added by V7-sport (talk • contribs)

A well deserved barnstar[edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
A well deserved barnstar for paying attention to and courageously and honorably working to keep Wikipedia together in places where it really matters. Epipelagic (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--John (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]

Simon Scott[edit]

Spike7744, who only seems to edit this article, repeatedly removes all reference to one of Scott's most high profile bands Lowgold. As a solo artist, Scott is largely unknown and wouldn't warrant an article without his involvement as a drummer in previous bands Slowdive and Lowgold. I have previously left a message on the talk page, which has been ignored.

As you are an established admin, could you please warn this user that they shouldn't be removing reference information from articles?

Thanks. 92.5.93.29 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on it. Thank you. --John (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011[edit]

Leonard Cohen[edit]

You reverted wholesale my dozen or so small revisions to the Leonard Cohen page. If you'd looked closely at each individual change, you'd see that most of them clarify poor sentences (in the 1970s tour section for example) and removed some strange unsourced attempts to vex lyrics. Someone ought to deal with that section. If you don't like my start on it, do it yourself. A few of my changes just improved the economy of sentences, like the small improvements I made to the 'lyrical themes' section, regarding the influence of his Jewishness. The section on the 2010 Tour was written in future tense, which I changed. If you have a problem with one or more of my little changes, please feel free to change them. Just don't revert all at once. The article needs a lot of streamlining. I was merely trying to help. (Oh, and in addition, numerous live DVD/live CD collections have been released of late, none of which are even mentioned on the page. One of my changes was to add a mention of the Isle of Wight DVD. It's been out for two or three years. It's just another example of how the page will not improve if you keep reverting.)Brokesocscene (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your edit introduced numerous errors into the article and so I did not think it was a net improvement. It might be worth considering doing future edits in smaller increments to get around this problem. --John (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? What errors? Brokesocscene (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Performanced" and "entirity" are two obvious ones that jumped out at me. There may well be others. --John (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Why not just correct those and leave most of my other changes? I'll quit bugging you after this suggestion: You, or someone else should really do a major rewrite of that article. No other major artist's page has so ridiculous a 'fanclub discussion thread' tone. The meandering musings about lyrics could be replaced with a two sentence account of his lyrical themes (Judaism, sex, war, political unrest, etc), which could be easily sourced, and the poorly worded notes on various tours could be replaced with either a short account of each tour ("Cohen toured North America and Europe for ... months. Recordings from the tour were released in ... as ..."), or a single new section accounting for his live career. Contradictory information, such as Cohen "returning from 5 years of seclusion in 2001" only a few sentences after a sentence telling of his return to LA in 1999 should be removed. I'll leave you be, but man, that article needs work. I was just trying to get it started. Brokesocscene (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are good suggestions and I will try to follow them. Again, I am sorry that I felt I had to undo your edit as I do appreciate that it was well-intentioned. --John (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ...[edit]

Do something about these contributions? Utterly unreliable source, definitley self-promoting... argh! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for the nudge. --John (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


MoMK floorplan[edit]

Hi. I hope that I don't get too much flak for doing this... SuperMarioMan 03:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not too. I agree with the removal. Thank you. --John (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, it did seem like quite a long shot. SuperMarioMan 12:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did the right thing. There is no pleasing everyone. Consensus will prevail in the long run. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

Block message at User talk:Tholzel[edit]

When you left the message at User talk:Tholzel#Blocked indefinitely you included both options for appealing the block (email and {{unblock}}) separated by | and both options written as if they were the only option. This looks like a slightly broken template call. I've had no interaction with Tholzel, and make no comments about the block, but in the interests of tidyness and fairness I think it would benefit if you clarified the possibly slighlty block message. Thryduulf (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed. --John (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

Burghfield[edit]

Hello, I've noticed that you have completely removed the Sport and Leisure section, citing 'no ads please'. I disagree: the information was important to the article describing Sport and Leisure activities in the locale. If some items came accross as ads, then perhaps a tidy-up is necesary, but not a wholescale section deletion? Let's discuss, regards Pahazzard (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I did not notice this message before now. I have started a discussion at Talk:Burghfield if you would like to discuss it there. --John (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with user RaptorHunter[edit]

Hi John. Recently, the following behaviour was exhibited by User:RaptorHunter:

  • Adding "Jimbo never sleeps" to Jimbo Wales' home page.
  • Adding "Jimbo's gaze will steal your soul" to Jimbo Wales' home page.
  • When pulled-up on the above two edits, RaptorHunter's response was "It's on the talk page that anyone can edit. So I did. You're no fun".

You've got a calm and level-headed reputation at WP, so would it be possible for you to have a quick word to RaptorHunter on his talk page about why such behaviour is unacceptable in a collaborative environment? I would suggest that a calm and helpful tone would be the best approach (so as not to antagonise him). If you are not comfortable doing this or if you are too busy with other work at the moment, then I completely understand. Thanks, and cheers.  GFHandel.   20:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GFHandel appears to be WP:HOUNDING me. He has already filed an incident report today listing every random thing he could find [3]--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the AN/I report. I will keep an eye on it and may come back to one or both of you with more specific recommendations. That's all for now. --John (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GK Sierra[edit]

John - Thank you for the instructive note. I am a Wikipedia rookie and probably bit off more than I could chew. I noticed that any mention of the company was pulled and mentioned to be a hoax?. I know I fall more in the camp of conspiracy theorist, but the company is real. They have a website and are listed in the government contractors DB and are a listed corporation in Delaware and are mentioned in some of the wikileaks documents. Last estimate I took was that the references need some desperate help, but that could be fixed? I will leave the topic alone, with the hopes of a more competent contributor can give it the attention it needs. Thanks for your time! Cheers. Andylarazola (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I see I'm not the only person to notice that you are targeting GK Sierra related contributions. So, what's the deal? Hoax? I work three blocks from one of their offices, I'll go ask if they are just kidding. You must work for them... Please provide an explanation for your classification. 198.236.242.3 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia works off notability, which in turn works off verifiability. If you can provide good-quality third-party references on the company, we can reconsider having an article on them. When I checked prior to deleting the article last night, the only Google hits were the Wikipedia article, the company's own website, and some Facebook and LinkedIn references. If you are an expert in this area, you can maybe point me to better references. If not, I am afraid Wikipedia cannot be the only internet resource which mentions this company. --John (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense and I understand the necessity of verification. I guess I took offense to the notion that it was a hoax as opposed to a sincere attempt at contribution – as I firmly believe in WP’s mission and would not want to sully its credibility. How much time would I and others have to sure-up verifiable, third party, references before the page is deleted? Obviously, the page was not given the benefit of a rework. Thanks for your considered response, and sorry for my sarcasm. 198.236.242.3 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the page was deleted, it is easy enough to recover it if or when third party sources are found. Are there books which discuss this company? Magazine or newspaper articles? These would do in the absence of internet sources. Let me know if you find anything. --John (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are indeed. RBC just (a few weeks ago,) published a mini expose on them, which I think might have pushed them into the limelight a bit. The article is in Russian. Not a problem for me - Я говорю на русском. That article references other articles. I would pull it up now, but my darned work firewall wont let me. What would be the best forum to present this evidence? 198.236.242.3 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, we prefer English sources. If the organization is truly notable, there should be English sources on it. Still, a Russian magazine article would be a start. --John (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the time you’ve taken. RBC is the Russian equivalent of the US’s CNN – the do have an English edition but they only publish about 10% of main Russian content. I know there are some english sources out there, I’ll do some digging. 198.236.242.3 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Let me know what you come up with and I'll be happy to advise you. --John (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will help collect info. Thanks to the both of you. Andylarazola (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're very welcome, and I'm sorry I felt I had to delete an article which I recognize took work to prepare. There are a couple of options open to you, but I'll let you come up with sources to establish notability first. I don't think another admin would come to a different conclusion, but if you feel I've acted precipitately I could have someone else look it over too. See if you can come up with sources, as that would swing the argument. There's no hurry; if even in six months or a year there are some mentions in CNN, the Guardian, the BBC or suchlike, we can look at it again then. --John (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Thatcher[edit]

Time for an FAC nomination? I've got no idea how it might go, but it would get a lot more eyes on the article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? I'm on holiday next week, so will have a little more time than usual to devote to it. --John (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what would we need to do? You'll have to talk me through this I'm afraid. --John (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth's very kindly offered to take a look through, which she's doing now. Depending on what she comes up with we need to do a final wash and brush-up and then just go ahead with the nomination. I can do that when we think we're ready. Perhaps Geometry guy ought to be a co-nominator as well? Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Malleus. I agree GG should be conom. Let me know if there is anything specific you want me to do. Today and tomorrow will be fairly busy but from Sunday I will have more time. --John (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth has left a monster list of things we need to attend to on the article's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading it. Apart from one item which is just plain wrong ("economics" is singular, not plural) I agree with the points she makes and will begin to address them over the weekend. "Yanks" is a word I haven't heard in a while! --John (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP threatening legal action against wikipedia.[edit]

He's also changing figures. Can you take a look? [4] [5]--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked per WP:NLT. --John (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]


 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For cheering me up with a brief message. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was very kind! --John (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

File:Karte_haigerloch_in_deutschland.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Karte_haigerloch_in_deutschland.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Common Good (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. --John (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climatic Research Unit email controversy[edit]

Hi John,

It looks like you've been wikignoming away on the dates at Climatic Research Unit email controversy (for which I thanks you!). In the process, you have also added back a para that was reverted. Was that intentional? --Thepm (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite add it back as it stood, but instead added a toned-down version of the para that was removed, as I explained in article talk. If that's a problem, just let me know. --John (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no problem, I just wasn't sure if it was deliberate. I've seen your comment on the talk page now. Thanks again. --Thepm (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nagyon köszönöm[edit]

Köszönöm!

Köszönöm a kedvességét.
Köszönjük, hogy az ember vagy:
kedves és figyelmes,
érzékeny és figyelmes,
A nagyvonalú és figyelmes adakozót.
Ön önzetlen mindig,
üzembe mások előtt magát,
éreztem magam különleges és fontos.
Ez egy kiváltság és öröm, hogy ismerlek.

Ön olyan személy,
aki megkönnyíti az életet és a jobb
mindenki körülötted.
Ön folyamatosan jár
Az előzékenység
és kedvesség
felderül minden nap.
Mit tettél velem
felvillan emlékezetemben,
frissítő kellemes érzéseket
minden alkalommal,
amikor belegondolok.
Hálás vagyok, hogy,
és én köszönöm.

—J.Z., egy magyar barátja

Köszönöm a kedves üzenetet. Öröm volt látni a magyar oldalamon, én is sok boldog emlékek a időt töltöttem az Ön országában. Köszönöm.--John (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011[edit]

Daily Tegraph external links[edit]

John, I just corrected the dailytelegraph URLs after someone changed them back in January.

Within minutes, you have then gone and removed all external links to the website from the Wikipedia page.

To keep things fair and balanced, can you please also remove the external links on the other Sydney paper owned by Fairfax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smh.com.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.69.2.1 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you're aware, I didn't remove all the links; one should be enough. I see you edited the other page yourself, which is fine. --John (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

The number of misdirected, fallacious and WP:NOTTHEM-style arguments at the topic ban discussion is rather disappointing. I don't see a single valid point made so far to counter the concerns that you have raised. It's fortunate that Wikipedia relies on strength of arguments, not simple numerical majorities. SuperMarioMan 14:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The whole area is a mess. --John (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that it would perhaps be appropriate to start adding this to applicable votes/comments? Some of the "Oppose" statements are completely missing the point (I do love it when attempts are made to turn the whole debate into something about me) - and given earlier, similar discussions, I have little good faith left about that at all. However, since I've already made several rather heated contributions there, I'm cautious as to how to proceed. Perhaps it wouldn't be such a good idea. SuperMarioMan 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up to the above: I feel that there is some merit to Berean Hunter's recommendation about putting the matter to one side for now. This would indeed be lenient in light of all that has happened, but perhaps two weeks off will give the user pause for thought. If the uncivil editing resumes, there can be only one probable result. SuperMarioMan 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if that is the consensus of the discussion (however imperfect the discussion was, which is a separate point), I will go with that. --John (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The POV editing is continuing, as shown here. TMCk has made a proposal for a written agreement to avoid the topic - I feel that this must be one that includes the "broadly construed" wording, since simply staying off one article and its talk page is proving to be of no benefit whatsoever. SuperMarioMan 16:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a problem. --John (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, their last pledge in the "topic ban" section at ANI is:
"I would like to request that this topic be closed as I am already on a voluntary timeout from editing the MoMK page or posting on its talk page until 10th May. Attempting to block an editor who is already on a voluntary timeout is extremely combative. Questions need to be raised about such behaviour. I would prefer not to be posting on Wikipedia at all until 10th May, and as long as nobody comments about me i will not do so."
So they not only ignored my less narrow proposal but clearly broke their own pledge.TMCk (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is true. --John (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

Tried a page move and made a complete mess of it. (Not remotely controversial :) Blackhorse to "Blackhorse, Dublin" in order to standardise name of a suburb of Dublin. Sarah777 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. --John (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent modification of text within Hartlepool[edit]

Hullo. I revert this to the original statement by myself, if in a different form. As you will see I make clear once again that there is evidence that no individual could be identified at the time (1921) as 'the first soldier to die on British soil' (the East Coast Raid in December 1921). The main problem is unfortunately completely incorrect descriptions by government departments and the local authority of what is described as the 'listed building' on Redheugh Gardens together with another incorrect description by other parties (it is not listed) of what is correctly described in contemporary documents as the 'War Memorial Tablet' on the Lighthouse Slope referring to the 'first soldier' (singular) but without giving any name. Certainly your own version is much easier to read, and could have the same meaning as the previous text given the statements that occur in the same paragraph which I am glad to say you have left intact. If you now undo my revision I shall not continue with this matter any further but I hope you will leave it as it is given some of the wider and rather more complicated long-running issues which you may possibly imagine. Thanks. Peter Judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.78.213 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

Could you Revdel 3 revisions + edit summaries at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher? Per WP:OUTING Jarkeld (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all edits that that user has ever made?LedRush (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else already beat me to it. --John (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your uncivil editing[edit]

Wholesale reversion of a person's new section for a Wikipedia article which they have spent time researching is uncivil and hostile, especially when you do not offer any meaningful explanation for your action or notify the person on their talk page. Please cease this behaviour. You need to explain why you feel the Wiki entry for Italy should not have a human rights section when other countries' Wiki entries do. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done, in both of the talk pages. So should you, that is how we work here. What happened to the break from editing you were taking? --John (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was your explanation as to why the article on Italy should not have a human rights section? My explanation that it should have one is that other countries' entries have such a section and as the statistics show, Italy accounts for large numbers of human rights cases. Why did you blanket revert the new section 36 minutes before you started any discussion on the article's talk page? Why didn't you notify me on my talk page? These are the questions I'm confused about as you appear to be in prima facie breach of Wikipedia policy. Also when did I promise to take an unconditional break from editing? Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion related to article content is best directed to the relevant article talk pages. Here is where you said you would be taking a break, since it seems you've forgotten. Breaking your word was a poor idea; folks will have less patience with you the next time, you'll see. In relation to whether it was my duty to inform you on your talk page that I had removed the coatracking, a look at WP:BRD will reveal that I acted properly. If you want to continue to be able to edit here, you really should brush up on what we are doing here and how we do it. We're a very forgiving community but eventually collective patience wears thin if you demonstrate you are unable to learn how to act here. --John (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't break my word. i said i would not edit Wikipedia until 10th May if nobody posted about me on the AN/I thread. Since they continued to post, and advocate my banning, I continued to edit Wikipedia. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the connection between the thread at the noticeboard continuing to discuss your problematic behavior, and your continuing to indulge in the behavior? I would have thought if anything you would have toned it down given the concerns, not stepped it up. Unless you were trying to make a point... --John (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any problematic behaviour, nor does there seem to be any real interest from anyone except the usual suspects in keeping that glacially tedious thread going. Ciao! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of awareness may be a problem for you, but I guess time will tell. Enjoy your time editing here. --John (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your time making veiled threats and insinuations. I suppose Wikipedia is one place where someone like you gets to feel important. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cody, it would be a good idea to refrain from making abusive and sarcastic remarks on John and DeCausa's user talk pages. It does little to reassure them or others that you are acquainted with WP:NPA, which has been put forward to you as suggested reading more than once in the past, nor does it do much to improve your general standing at Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI again[edit]

Having earlier called for the archiving of the WP:ANI discussion (unresolved) on Cody, Wikid77 has taken it upon himself to do just that. Is this acceptable, given that the problems at hand appeared to be far from resolved and that he had been an active participant in the sections that he unilaterally decided to archive without warning? SuperMarioMan 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw that, it was unfortunate. These things have a way of coming out in the wash though so don't worry. --John (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How nice... SuperMarioMan 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

Bin Laden compound[edit]

I see you moved the page, can you please cleanup after yourself and fix the redirects which linked to that page?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bot will get any double redirects and I might get to cleaning up single redirects if I have time. --John (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag wars?[edit]

John, could you have a look at:

  • (cur | prev) 23:59, 3 May 2011 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) m (8,111 bytes) (Reverted edits by DinDraithou (talk) to last version by Sarah777) (rollback | undo)
  • (cur | prev) 23:58, 3 May 2011 DinDraithou (talk | contribs) (7,968 bytes) (does and will do it no good) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 23:55, 3 May 2011 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (8,111 bytes) (Undid revision 427309288 by DinDraithou (talk)wtf????) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 23:10, 3 May 2011 DinDraithou (talk | contribs) (7,968 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 23:06, 3 May 2011 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (8,111 bytes) (rate) (undo)

and maybe explain to User:DinDraithou that it can't just go removing tags from "it's" articles? I don't really want to have to invoke the three strikes rule. Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am, of course, talking about the Bissett family (Ireland). It's the main topic at the water-cooler these days :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I took a quick look and have asked DD to explain what is going on, to see if I will be able to help sort it out. --John (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he doesn't understand how the system works. It took me about half a dozen blocks to get the hang of it! Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection status[edit]

Thanks, John, for the warning. I will be careful and I agree with you. I didn't plan to personally revert again after I saw he had gone back to his pattern, even violating 3RR by making 4 reversions within 24 hours. The block against him was certainty was warranted. I've been trying to get him to work collaboratively, and was making some progress working with him to implement some of the changes he felt strong about, so it's regrettable he lapsed back to a disruptive pattern after he was recently warned against repeating by another admin.

I notice the article is now, regrettably, protected. Since the editor is now blocked, can we lift protection, being unnecessary now? There will not be any edit warring on the article, now, as it was just that one editor who was causing the problem with that article. Thank you. BernieW650 (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at your talk. --John (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: jrtayloriv[edit]

Hello, John. You have new messages at Jrtayloriv's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GOCE drive newsletter[edit]

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011[edit]

Sarah777[edit]

Hi, I am glad you got involved with this. The internet is full of advice to web developers not to use national flags for language choice, so the opposition to the Union Jack doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all. (Even without a history of violent conflict, Austrian websites tend to use the Austrian flag for the language choice "Deutsch".[6]) Unfortunately such discussions always attract numerous nationalist English/British editors who will then always argue for status quo and traditional language without engaging in proper communication. There were very similar problems with Template:British Isles. It's not OK to indef one of their few Irish counterparts for her reactions when cornered in this way. These three edits, while bad enough, aren't enough for that.

I don't have much time this week, and for the moment I am relying on you (or someone else) to make sure this is handled properly. Please let me know if you need help or if something goes wrong. Hans Adler 09:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

John, in light of the recent activities and statements involving HJ Mitchell I am hereby requesting that you use your access as an administrator to turn off the "autopatrolled" a.k.a "autoreviewer" bit on my account. The right, given to "trusted users who regularly create articles and have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines", was granted to me by HJ Mitchell on 22 January 2011. I do not wish to be associated with the actions and activities of the editor who granted this right, including any association that may be inferred by accepting the granting of the right from him. If, after turning off the bit you then feel so inclined to reinstate the autopatolled right under your own account and powers, I would accept that. Although this may be viewed as largely symbolic it is important to me that it be done and I would be grateful if you would spend the few seconds required to uncheck and then recheck the box for me. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful, John. Sswonk (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. --John (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States and state terrorism[edit]

Despite your request for zero reversions, and despite the smarmy display of telling you what you wanted to hear on the talk page Jrtayloriv reverted back to the previous version as soon as the article was unlocked. You assured me on my talk page that “There won't be any more edit warring at that article once the protection expires”.

Per WP:BURDEN (The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it.) As such I would appreciate it if you were to advocate for working from the previous version and adding material rather then restoring disputed material and working to whittle it down. Also the dispute tags which Jrtayloriv keeps removing are very valid and have been discussed on the talk page. Thanks. V7-sport (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. V7-sport (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. --John (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And right on cue, we have an "anon" reverting back to the previous version. This time it's using a proxy/spam mail server in Malaysia. Can I revert that?V7-sport (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's awkward. I won't revert and neither should you. I would love it if you could post a really clear and concise argument at talk for the deletions you wish to make. Please refer to reliable sources and acknowledge that others have different views from yours. We will have to work together to fix this problem and a compromise always involves concessions from both sides. Don't worry about how the article looks right now; it was protected for a week on what others regarded as the "wrong version". It's more important to think what will the article look like in a month from now; it will be stable at a consensus version, would be my vision. I have semi-protected the article. Thank you for telling me, and thank you for not reverting. --John (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance your mind has changed since that IP address was blocked as an open proxy?V7-sport (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Like I said, don't worry about how the article looks right now; let's focus on how it will look in a month when all the warring has been resolved. --John (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A month? :-D Some of my first edits here were on this article. V7-sport (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Detail[edit]

I've just noticed your comment on my talk page for the Surface Detail article; "Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."

Anyway, sorry for the delay, I know very little about Wikipedia at any kind of advanced level. I don't have any Wikiassociates and only recently got around to looking at my talk page at all. I've got more free time now. But I'd have to comment that if you're referring to the reversion of your deletion, a short tu quoque is in order here. You were the person who deleted someone's observation (not mine) about the anagrams, for example, without discussion on the article's discussion page.

After reviewing the huge WP:OR material I did put a note up on the discussion page (back in late March) about the edits, and wondering if "John" was some kind of admin (it was in the back of my mind that a common name like "John" wouldn't be a user tag unless belonging to a very very early contributor, probably an administrator).

I also reverted your edits. I guess the major problem for me was that the changes you made amounted to a wholesale reversion with nothing on the discussion page. I'm sure you know much more than me about Wikipedia policies. But ordinary arithmetic operations ("Routine Calculations") are not OR. Permuting letters of the alphabet is even simpler, which is why I got the impression that should stay.

All the same, I really don't want to make an admin's life more difficult. God knows it's hard enough to do such a thankless job without having to cope with the uncivilities just a quick perusal of your talk page has revealed. If it's too hard to reduce OR-ness at a fine level of detail, just revert the damn thing back again. --Sdoradus (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I will comment at article talk. --John (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ngtihgiterughwet4bg4tu[edit]

Ngtihgiterughwet4bg4tu (talk · contribs) I am having severe internet lags at the moment and can't be 100% sure, but it seems you posted a block template on the talk page of this user and haven't blocked them. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that. I got distracted. --John (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for mopping up the recent Starbureiy family of hoaxes. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. --John (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NWA[edit]

What is it you were trying to do there? --John (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John. I'm new to Wikipedia. I was trying to edit the photo for N.W.A's page with a new photo of the hip hop group, but someone changed it back to the old photo. --Ginmassoli Ginnie M (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011[edit]

How can you disagree?[edit]

How can you disagree that an editor ought to be encouraged to participate more productively? Not forced to, but encouraged to.[7]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

The "more productively" I could live with, it was the "and less obsessively" I wasn't sure about. In my experience it is always better to focus on objective "behavior" rather than supposed attitudes of mind like "obsessive". Obviously I understand your meaning and I agree with the main thrust of what you are saying, hence my support. --John (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Obviously you haven't been a victim of PBS's "standard referencing" obsession then. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I followed that at a distance and I was somewhat puzzled by the vehemence with which he pursued his opinion. But honestly, I am sure you could find people who would say worse than that about me. For example, I know I have been accused of being obsessed with (among other things) delinking dates, formatting pictures, overuse of non-free images, overlinking country names, the use of flags on articles, in-fucking-popular-culture sections... Obviously I would say I have been right on those issues, but I am sure that to someone who disagreed with me, I would seem obsessive even to care about these things which to others are peripheral but to me are important. A bit like the reference formatting spat PBS and PoD have had. --John (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar spat over reference formatting with PBS, several if I recall correctly, and I am by no means alone. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the evidence for that and on that basis I support the motion that PBS needs to handle disputes better. I just think it is ultimately more beneficial and likelier to lead to change when people are able to separate the behavior (which is evidence-based, or falsifiable in the philosophical sense) and someone's opinion on the motivations or underlying psychological state said to be the cause of it (even when that opinion is quite probably correct). Blame the folk who made me read David Hume when I was younger. --John (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour is obsessive, not individuals. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Individuals may exhibit behavior which other individuals may judge to be obsessive. The behavior is provable, the judgement that it is obsessive is a subjective one. --John (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We will once again have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I would refer you to Popper, and challenge you to disprove my hypothesis that PBS has been acting obsessively. Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to agree to disagree with you on this fine point of detail. I'm not sure I could disprove your hypothesis even if I had time or energy to do so. I'll leave that to PBS to do. Cheers, --John (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point, and it's not a fine point of detail. PBS has consistently over a long period of time now refused to take part in any discussion about his disruptive behaviour, and here are you, another administrator, making excuses for him. Frankly I'm just about at the end of my tether with wikipedia's dishonesty with respect to its admins. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong Malleus. The question of whether this user's behavior qualifies as "obsessive" is a fine detail not worth arguing over. The question about PBS's conduct going forward is a very serious one and will need to be addressed. I am not sure this is as generalized a problem as you think it is but I think we are in substantial agreement about this specific issue. My only addendum would be, as I said there, that PoD probably needs to rein himself in a little as well; there is almost always fault on both sides in a situation like this. PBS needs to sort out this ongoing problem, and pretending it is not happening will not help him. --John (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wikiway is always to say that there's fault on both sides, but it always ignores the proportion of fault. PoD has done nothing wrong, yet you and others have allowed PBS to run rampant, because he's an administrator and can do no wrong. It's time to rein him in. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well in my experience in real life as well there is usually an element of responsibility on both sides of a dispute. I see PBS in the right of this argument, if a little over-vehement, and I see PoD clearly exasperated. That was back in January and you and I both weighed in there towards a compromise which I think was successful. PBS seems to have taken a grudge away from that encounter perhaps. --John (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PBS's behaviour is long-standing and has been allowed to continue for far too long, way beyond that fairly recent incident. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was the first time I can recall seeing him. I hope the RFC/U, which looks like being clear-cut, will help him to see that his behavior is unsatisfactory, and we can all get on with things that add more value to the project, mostly minor copyedits on obscure articles for me at the moment but there you go. --John (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, John. You have new messages at File talk:Tyrant's-Pants.jpg.
Message added 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting that edit and warning the editor. I'll take down the threat, but let's leave it until the checkusers have confirmed it's who I think it is. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. TK(88) 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right though about it deterring editors. Not very nice stuff. TK(88) 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help page[edit]

See "Anagrams". Kittybrewster ☎ 16:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean? --John (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[8] Kittybrewster ☎ 17:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Harry Smart[edit]

The article Harry Smart has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

John, I guess you where planning to add a reference later but rechecking that you grasp that BLP's require a reference and that WP:EL are not references. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear to me that ELs could not be counted as references to verify the notability of this well-known artist. Yes, I was being lazy to leave proper referencing of this article until later, too. I am confident there are loads of sources out there, and I intend to add material to the new article to reflect that. --John (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reference directly supports the material in the article while an EL does not. It's interesting you are not aware of this, I figure many others are not also. It's partly I think because so many want to water down the requirements of a BLP so they can link to any rubbishy source. Anyway thanks for referencing Harry Smart, nicely done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Suggestion from John" on Sarah777's talk page[edit]

Hi,

I just wanted to say that you have put into words far better than I could have hoped for what I was trying to get across with my proposal. Thanks. Mtking (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --John (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just one thought, it might be worth spelling out what is meant by "No naming stuff that relates to UK or Ireland, broadly construed" so as to avoid any unseemly running off to AN/I everytime someone else thinks it may have been broken. Mtking (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended my proposal slightly; what do you think? --John (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is clearer. Mtking (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Just spotted your moniker added to the list. Great to have some positive expression of interest in this area! If you have any suggestions for moving things along on the project, don't be shy. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. --John (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toug ma Tojer[edit]

I noticed the block on User:Toug ma Tojer, and I'm not in disagreement about it, but I wanted to ask about the Irvine22 determination. The reason I didn't block on sight was this: the edit he reverted to was one also made by a now topic banned editor - I 100% agree that Toug ma Tojer quacks like one of the serial disrupters from the British Isles dispute, maybe a sock master (like MidnightBlueMan, Irvine22 or MaidenCity), I just have a suspicion that it might be ban evasion by one of 3 or 4 other editors. I'm in two minds about an SSP - what's your thinking?--Cailil talk 13:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user name was a dead giveaway. Irvine always uses infantile phallic usernames, Freud would have been delighted. Taken together with the area he was editing it is 99% certain (to me at least) that this is Irvine. --John (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't think it's Irvine. I'm more inclined along the lines that Cailil is thinking. especially given the edit summary (which was never used by Irvine in the past and I don't remember ever having a run-in with him). No doubt an SPI will only show that the editor uses a Virgin (UK) ISP, where editors in-the-know can acquire any number of IP addresses (and even easily spoof IP addresses). --HighKing (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't claim to be omniscient. I'd be happy to just let the block stand. No need for an SPI unless you think there is. --John (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just see what happens and if we are about to see a sudden appearance of new editors. Thanks John. --HighKing (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic film article[edit]

I was looking at the section on Captain Smith in the Titanic film article. I can't tell which is the film story and which are the facts. Can you be of some assistance on that? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean RMS Titanic in popular culture? I took a hack at it. --John (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mixed up the link. Titanic (1997 film) where he appears under historical characters here. It's just a mess of fact and fiction. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011[edit]


Oh no I am not[edit]

John, oh no I am not. I take great offence against your false allegations. And for the record, DNA. Toger is a perfectly common Swedish name.Sven the Big Viking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Toug ma Tojer[edit]

Hey. I saw you blocked Toug ma Tojer (talk · contribs) for evading a block. Who's the master, though? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. I thought from the puerile phallic user name linked to masturbation and the area edited it was Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but it may be that I was mistaken. The post above is from the same editor's new account and this may bear some watching. I still stand by the block, it was merited on username grounds alone. --John (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't doubt that the block was warranted - I was just wondering about the connection. Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toug ma Tojer the OP speculated that it could be MidnightBlueMan (talk · contribs) (though admittedly I don't see a connection with that one), so I was wondering if you knew something I didn't. Thanks anyway. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on that, though it's for sure that this was a sock of a blocked user from behavioral evidence alone. Thanks for blocking, we really don't need socks blind-reverting on UK/Ireland issues at the moment. --John (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to chime in. I left John a note about this previously and I agree that TmT is a sock of somebody but mot Irvine22 (or IMHO MidnightBlueMan). I was at the point of blocking that account myself but John got their first. This looks like one of the blocked or topic banned editors from the British Isles dispute. The accounts' revert edit summaries, wrt HighKing, are a common trait of such accounts. Also the rhetoric in the unblock request (making allegations against me) narrows that to 3 or 4 user accounts, none of whom have yet been found to be sock-puppeteers already. Most of these accounts are listed at the SPI but drop me an email if you like--Cailil talk 23:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right; our previous conversation is archived at User_talk:John/Archive_60#Toug_ma_Tojer. I accept that my identification of TmT as Irvine was probably mistaken. I'll defer to your judgment in this area going forward, as it seems your expertise is greater than mine. Do please let me know if there's anything else I can do. --John (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • TBH John it's good to see another admin looking in on this problem. So just keep doing what you're doing. As regards the person behind TmT they're looking for attention, they maybe Irvine22 as well as the account I'm thinking of and might actually have used a few (now blocked) false flag accounts too. I'm doing some digging and will send you an email in a few days--Cailil talk 12:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77[edit]

Hi, John. Just so that you know (being the one who made the proposal in the first place), I believe that there is now firm consensus (I count 15 users in favour) for a topic ban of some duration, and that it is now simply a matter for someone uninvolved to fix that duration and then enact the ban. To that end, I have started a "Move to close" subsection at the discussion. Regards, SuperMarioMan 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SMM. Did you see the suggestion I made at the article talk page? --John (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How ridiculous. SuperMarioMan 17:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, at least they recognize this is a minority view. Going forwards, I suggest just ignoring the "for great justice" camp and trying to discuss towards a compromise with other folks there who understand how we work. --John (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011[edit]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The small barnstar, for gnomish work[edit]

The Original Barnstar, for good deed #1 The Original Barnstar
for removing overlinks at Los Angeles Times (and maybe elsewhere, too). GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you! --John (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011[edit]

MoMK edits and source[edit]

John, the Telegraph article at the end of the paragraph does mention that Guede was known to the police as a drug dealer and had some minor drug offenses on his record. Do you have concerns about that article being a RS for that info?

That section was oddly worded as it was, with the phrase before saying no record, then saying he did. I tried to balance it with no "serious" record. At least locally, judges tend to ignore minor stuff (marijuana, etc). My gut says that it's a case of reporters not being precise. Ravensfire (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, Ravensfire. The Telegraph is a right-wing paper but I'd say it has a decent reputation for fact-checking. --John (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yolandi Vi$$er[edit]

Hi John, just a headsup that I've reverted your edits to Yolandi Visser - the version with the dollars - Vi$$er is actually the pseudonym she tends to go by! As far as I can tell, this doesn't contradict WP:MOS or any other wiki policies (although I'd imagine technical constraints prevent her own article being named this way) - if you feel otherwise, feel free to revert and take it to talk. Just as an aside, you might be one of the best wikignomes I've seen, good stuff! Kaini (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks! I don't feel strongly about the name matter, I just had a feeling that our MoS would preclude our using her stage name as she writes it. If I figure that out I will post at article talk. --John (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MoMK, strange edit[edit]

Not sure either about that. That part I didn't change thus it's probably one of those rare occasions where the software plays it's games. Cheers TMCk (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my opinion on it too. No worries, onwards and upwards. Amusing addition btw. --John (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pssst. It's a secret ;) TMCk (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

John, I just wanted to drop by and thank you for being the voice of reason. You handled the situation much better than I did, and I will keep the good example of your attempts to defuse things in mind going forward. Best, 28bytes (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all in a day's work. You didn't do anything wrong as far as I can see; really, nobody did, which is why it'd have been a shame if anybody had got heated about it. I'm glad that didn't happen; thanks for the note, and I look forward to working with you in the future. --John (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

answer to your question[edit]

Hello I answered below there is no other account I couldn't edit because I was not logged in that's the sad fact of new user issues for further clarification read the section I started on Mr Wales page. Have a great day.--Truth Mom 05:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry there is NO other account . I just noticed the typo above : ) so im going to fix it now --Truth Mom (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's a cool new signature you have there! --John (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, John. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
Message added 03:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

RadioFan (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Just wanted to drop by again and thank you for your support during my RfA. Now that I have an additional bit, I have updated my signature accordingly. At this rate it'll be in kilobytes in no time! Best, 28⅛bytes (talk)15:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, you are welcome. I am glad it worked out; welcome to the thankless grind of adminship. I look forward to seeing you get into the kilobytes; what is the story of your username anyway? --John (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28 has special meaning for me; among other things, it's my day of birth. "Bytes" because I'm an old-school computer programmer (assembly language and such) and often have to measure things with that level of granularity. Put 'em together, and it seemed catchy! 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, thanks for explaining. Although I have an absolute horror of programming or any type of coding beyond wiki-markup, I am old enough to remember when things were much smaller and slower. My first PC was a 286 with 4MB of RAM and a 100 MB hard disk. Those were the days; everything was so exciting and new. --John (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you've seen this, but you get 128 bytes of RAM to work with there. 4MB, that's downright luxurious. :) 28bytes (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

Please don't post on my talk page any more. Thank you!LedRush (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to honor this request LedRush, but I would also ask you to honor mine. I would also ask you not to refer to me in your talk, as you did here, if you wish me to refrain from replying there. I'm not going to offer to stop discussing how to improve the MoMK page though, so it's inevitable we will run into each other there, and so I further request that you stop falsely characterizing my edits (and those of others) as personal attacks every time we disagree, as you did here and here for example, unless you are willing to seek third opinions or WQA. What do you say? --John (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you engage in personal attacks, I will call them out. I will not go to WQA unless there is an egregious breach of civility. The minor ones that I point out are part of a larger problem at the talk page, one that it seems you are intent on fostering. If you have an issue with how I characterize your edits on my talk page, as you have in the past, I will not delete your constructive responses (as I have not deleted them in the past). But I will not let your disruptive and off-topic attacks on me stay on my talk page. This whole issue would be easily solved if you and a few others merely commented on edits and not on editors.
Of course, I have not been perfect in this regard. Like anyone, I have become frustrated with what I believe is a deliberate effort to incite, harass, and marginalize editors with whom you disagree. I believe the best way to deal with this issue is to call out the incivility as it occurs and where it occurs. In frustration, I am sure that I have been sarcastic or bitey at times. For those times, I apologize. But until you start contributing constructively and without ad hominem attacks, I will continue to point out these issues. And please don't believe you are special in this regard. I have repeatedly warned Rocksound, Cody, Wikid and others you classify as SPA advocates, and I have repeatedly acknowledged my own shortcomings with respect to civility. But it seems to me that there has been a huge push in incivility from you, TMCk (who has since toned it down), Tarc, SMM and BereanHunter (the latter two who I believe are generally reasonable and good editors) in the last 2 weeks or so. It must stop as it continues to poison the talk page.LedRush (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so you simultaneously wish to ask me to "[comment] on edits and not on editors" but also reserve the right to "call ... out" my putative "personal attacks". Can you see why this won't work? I suggest thinking about it some more; I also recommend you to take Tarc's advice in article talk to heart. --John (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you really don't understand this, but there is a difference between attempting to discredit others' views with incivility and ad hominem comments and calling for people to be more civil.LedRush (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there? I'm not sure I agree. As Tarc has said, the act of continually calling on people to be civil while not always maintaining civility oneself could itself be seen as uncivil, as well as slightly hypocritical and (most importantly) unconstructive to the purpose of our endeavor here. Please think about it. --John (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If LedRush wishes to be personally snippy when commenting on the subject matter, I really don't care, my skin is quite tough. I've just about had enough with the "tsk tsk" shtick, though, back in the Usenet era we used to call these types "Netcops". It's at a "put up or shut up" point as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have thought long about how to approach this issue, and have discussed the best ways to do this with editors whom I believe you respect. Of course, as it doesn't seem to be decreasing the amount of ad hominem arguments or bitey-ness, it is always a good idea to reassess strategies. I would hope that you would consider refraining from making the ad hominem arguments (like, "you're opinion doesn't matter because you're an SPA advocate" (paraphrase)) and try and treat the newer editors as you would want to be treated: address their comments and the strongest/best argument should prevail.LedRush (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, SPA's opinions are indeed weighted less, sorry, but that's the way of the Wikipedia. Template:SPA exists for a reason; it is the community consensus that such editor's contributions are possibly/probably problematic, because they appear to be only interested in seeing that their opinion is heard on a specific article or in a topic area, rather than being here to contribute generally to a collaborative online encyclopedia project. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks at last for a considered response LedRush. I don't accept that's an accurate paraphrase of anything I have said; realistically SPA's !votes don't count in a crude headcount sense, and I think it's kinder to be honest about that rather than not telling them, but if you feel that's unproductive I will take your feedback into account. I also agree with Tarc that you should from now on model the standard of civility you say you expect rather than making any more comments on it, which does look distracting and is the very thing you say you are against. --John (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you could have responded without taking last shots at me by calling my previous reponses not "considered". It is an example of unnecessary needling and condescension which poisons the MoMK talk page. Regardless, I do endeavor to be the model of what I preach. I don't always live up to it, but at least you and others are there to remind me of this (this is not said sarcastically). However, I cannot agree that pursuing editors to be civil and not make ad hominem arguments is akin to actually making ad hominem comments instead of commenting on the actual arguments, and my civility comments are generally clearly separated from my calls for civility - meaning, I don't say "this person is incivil so we should discount his policy argument". I promise you, if people don't make ad hominem arguments and don't bite editors with whom they disagree, not only will the talk board be more pleasant and more productive, the article will improve.LedRush (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Don't tell me, show me what it looks like. --John (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ball's in your court, and I am truly hoping for the best.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. --John (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, would you mind removing the SPA tags you've placed on the MoMK talk page as you said you would. Several people, including Errant, have said they do more harm than good.LedRush (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I would remove them; I said I wouldn't object if someone else removed them. Although they are there for a reason that is enshrined in policy, I won't object if you remove them if you feel they are unwarranted or unhelpful. --John (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're all pretty experienced Wikipedians, we know how this all works - I think we can find common ground... some points:

  • SPA's are unavoidable on articles such as these. And they tend to present various new and interesting problems :) Largely John and Tarc are right - an SPA going "me too" holds little weight. On the other hand some of the SPA's have actually contributed some positive things to the discussion, and if an SPA makes a good original argument it shouldn't be ignore by virtue of them being an SPA. There is a fine balance, I feel, between a single purpose editor with something to add and a purely disruptive SPA there to push an agenda. Or to put it another way - some editors on that page are genuinely there to make a contribution, that they lack a grounding in wiki-ettiquette, policy or neutrality is a problem that shouldn't automatically kill them off as an editor. On this point, John, labelling those editors as SPA in a discussion was probably a slight step too far.
  • This whole cut and thrust on the talk page is starting to verge towards the nasty. It feels uncomfortable; I quite like all of you guys as individuals and it is slightly awkward to see you all slogging it out on the talk page. From my observation you are all on slightly different "sides" of the discussion, but not by very much, and there is no need for you to be absolutely polarised. LedRush sees policy and views the case differently to Tarc and John. Instead of fighting about it, push on each other until a polite medium is reached - that, after all, is the essence of consensus. That's what I have been trying to do with LedRush (I hope, at least). The temptation is to comment on the comments of other editors and moan about their tone and language, I'm as guilty of that as the next man. But I think we should make a really strong effort to ignore such petty things and focus on the content; that is a polite criticism of all three of you :)
  • The pile of advocacy on this article is causing huge issues, and it is hard to navigate through (I've got it wrong enough times). This is leading to a straining of nerves and removing the willingness to cut any slack. I think we shouldn't go back to cutting slack - but I think simply ignoring behavioural issues, and taking a little extra time to put down a valid argument will solve a lot of problems (and probably let us work in a lot clearer way). I don't think there is any scenario where we can have a neutral article and not upset the advocacy groups, but there is still work to be done beyond resisting the advocacy.

You've all (I think) been here a lot longer than I have, so take this as you will - but I think a lot can be achieved by taking a really deep breath and approaching the article with a more laid back approach. We are not the problem, but we are adding to it in small ways, and I think a little tolerance of each other could be beneficial. To be explicit:

  • LedRush; stop jumping on the comments of others in such a "public" fashion, it does create more drama and could be resolved in a more background way
  • Tarc; be a little more open to the views of others, if you comment on a discussion recognise that somewhat off-hand comments often come across in a bad way to the uninitiated
  • John; cut a little slack, tagging the SPA's in the discussion was pushing the boundaries. And find some common ground with LedRush - I think you two could work good together.

I hope I have not abused or used up my good will with all of you via these comments. I do mean them construvtively (and invite the same criticism of myself!). Basically; if the established Wiki-editors are arguing, what hope does the article have? --Errant (chat!) 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments ErrantX. Everything you say makes sense except one; I'm not sure I agree with you over the SPA tagging "pushing the boundaries". Do you have a rationale for this? --John (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, common sense. It was an action that ultimately was only going to inflame an already tight situation. I see where your concern was coming from - but that discussion is never likely to be "closed" so the templates have minimal use per se. --Errant (chat!) 19:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I had believed that it wasn't going to be closed I would not have participated in the discussion nor added the tags. What makes you say that it is never likely to be closed? I can certainly see a certain admin fatigue coming from the article and its associated problems with advocacy and meat puppetry coming up on a weekly basis at AN/I, but surely we can find somebody to close it? --John (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • During the recent MoMK-related discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales, User:Wehwalt offered to serve as an uninvolved, neutral arbiter, should the need for one arise. SuperMarioMan 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perfect, I'd forgotten that. --John (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't mean an awful lot by it.. other than the fallout (argument about it) is worth less than the reward (risk that any closing admin would overlook the problem of SPA editing) --Errant (chat!) 19:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, I see what you mean. You may be right. Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with those of opposing points of view. I'll banter with LedRush if he proposes something I disagree with. Same with Wikid77, before his unfortunately-deserved enforced timeout. But as far as I am concerned, single-purpose editors are a bare step above anon IPs. Yes, they can produce a worthwhile contribution/suggestion on the talk page, and I do not dismiss their talk page sections on sight, but I do enter such topics with extremely low expectations. I also take exception to comments such as this, i.e. the "new users are here to contribute to a topic that they are educated on". This is not like a rocket scientist being locked out of a physics article by Randy in Boise, these are just people who are fervently involved in the minutiae of a celebrity court case. Tarc (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right Tarc, and I responded on Bruce's talk page. I agree though with LedRush and ErrantX that we all need to cool the thing down; I get annoyed as I guess you do too at attempts to sway our coverage towards a particular slant by an organized group like this, but I suppose in the modern world we would be astonished if this kind of thing didn't happen. A lot of these SPAs are likely good people and we need to treat them as such. --John (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

privledges[edit]

Thanks for restoring my privileges so quickly, I did have one lingering question though... You originally removed autopatrolled, reviewer and rollbacker from my account. I completely understand why reviewer and rollbacker were removed, but why autopatrolled? Did you have an issue with article's I've created to the point that you thought they should be patrolled or was this an oversight?--RadioFan (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was an oversight on my part. I'm happy you know safely how to use these privileges better in the future and I wish you every success. --John (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up.--RadioFan (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair[edit]

Hello John. You've twice removed the sentence "Blair denied that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if he had thought Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction", suggesting it appeared in the article twice. I can't see the other appearance of this sentence. You're not confusing it with the sentence that appears slightly earlier, are you "In 2009, Blair stated that he would have supported removing Saddam Hussein from power even in the face of proof that he had no such weapons"? Exok (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; it's worded so clunkily that I thought it was repeating the claim rather than undoing it. I may try to word it better. Thanks. --John (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


911[edit]

Calling! Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I happened to be ahead of you this time! Just by luck I already replied to you. --John (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River Shannon[edit]

Hello John, presumably it's OK for me to offer an opinion at Talk:River Shannon? LevenBoy (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're topic-banned or otherwise restricted, I don't see why not. Please try not to take some political position though, as it's holding back sane discussion on how to improve the article. --John (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI John, LevenBoy is banned from both editting & discussing naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, and the British Isles topics, widely construed.[9] This ban is logged on the General Sanctions sub-page for the British Isles dispute (WP:GS/BI). It is unclear to me if his comment here was in jest as was sugested by others elsewhere[10] or not. Either way this is just an fyi in case of any need for clarifaction--Cailil talk 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this explicit Cailil. This area truly is an Augean stables, isn't it? --John (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, can you advise me how to proceed. At the debate at the River Shannon article I have tried to maintain a cool head and not get involved in personal attacks and yet now at least three editors, most recently Snowded and Matt Lewis, have abused me simply because I have a low edit count and have chosen to get involved in a subject that is controversial. I have said nothing agasint them and yet the insinuations and general nastiness continues. Yes, I have strong views on the subject but I have tried to remain civil. I find Matt Lewis's recent remarks, some of which are directed at you, quite appalling and I would like to take the issue further. For Snowded, I notice that his talk page and its archives are nothing but one long battle on numerous subjects. What is the best way for me to complain about this? Van Speijk (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, let's have a look, I hadn't seen that. Before even looking, I strongly advise not getting riled by anything anybody may say about the nationality of a river. --John (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop stirring things up Van Speijk. You made 12 (fairly experienced) edits last summer, then after a 2-months gap hit the 'British Isles' (mainly sticking with the Shannon), and have stayed on 'BI' as a periodic editor ever since. I wish I looked at that before I started speaking to you on my talk page. It's only fair to say that for credibility you really need to edit outside of a single 'term'. WP:SPA's do legitimately exist, but one based on a term? It's very hard to take that seriously, especially as there have beem so many accounts now purely created to insert (or re-insert) the very same term. I used to just keep track of them (and the 'nationalist' ones too), as I got tired of building sock investigations, but unfortunately I took a big break and have lost various threads now. There are cases out there though where things are a little less hidden than others. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, I've replied in article talk to your comments there. This is my talk page and while it's nice to see you here, I don't think this is the best place to take forward your concerns about Van Speijk, unless you are asking me in an official capacity to take a look? --John (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered why you changed Van Speijk's section heading on my talk to 'Your Comments (2)'? Do you think I've crossed a line somewhere? John, I honestly think your edits to the River Shannon mayber per genreal MOS, but they are not per IMOS. You must understand that people will have a strong position on that, and on nationality in the area in general. I simply do not think it is 'lame' to put nation before geographical area whenever it even-slightly matters. That is just your opinion, and yes - the barnstar thing/stunt (whatever) did annoy me a lot - actually more than a let show. Of course it matters that the river doesn't run in Northern Ireland. It's a river - people have will want to know that kind of thing. That is not ugly or lame - most people see themselves as living in countries, not islands or continents, for a multitude of reasons. I've always argued that sovereignty is the key to peace on theses matters on Wikipedia. It is is nothing to be embarrassed about. You just don't know what I've seen regarding Ireland over the years - it really has become a 'special case' imo.

Ironically, when you took out every one of the wikilinks per WP:OVERLINK (which I just don't get at all), the first "Ireland" was the island (presumably given your stance), while the second "Ireland" (just after it) simply has to be the state, because it was solely about the various provinces the river divides. To me it is all about not making it so confusing for readers. 99.99999 etc percent of readers obviously won't know IMOS from a milk cart, although I thought IMOS was actaully clear about the need to disambiguate anyway. I was under the impression that various forms of disambiguation were worked out as a compromise after "Republic of Ireland" was kept as an article, but lost the ground it had as a label. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this so important to you? You say it is all about not making it so confusing for readers, but where is the evidence that anybody was confused as a reader (as opposed to an editor)? I'll have to disagree with you; I find the insistence on cramming as many political terms linked to the articles on nation states into this article on a river, and especially the passion that some like yourself bring to it, to be truly lame. No value judgment on you as a person, but I do think this area is a tremendously unproductive one for you to focus on. I retitled the section at your talk because it had the same title as a previous one, that is all. You should archive your talk. --John (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But who is cramming in as many political terms as possible? It's simply an unavoidable fact that the words "Ireland" and "British" have both geographical (island and archipelago) and political/cultural meanings. Therefore disambiguation is often going to involve mixing the two. Really - no great sin is being broken. Deliberately avoiding mixing them is often awkward and ill-conceived, and has rarely if ever done anything other than extend the volatility. Snappy removing "Republic of" per your rationale has actually completely politicised the article, as now it effectively says that the provinces belong to the island.
At this point you are supposed to inform me that the "volatility" on Wikipedia in this area will always be there anyway, but I absolutely disagree on that. Sockpuppetry problems, admin negativity (cynicism some might say) and guideline immaturity are the real issues here. I am always optimistic about often-easily solving these issues, but I stand alone in my positivity when I talk with admin on the matter. I maintain that 'NO POLITICS' is a special-case philosophy that has developed from a top-level desire to manage the various IRE-UK crossover issues. Just speak to other admin who have touched the area - they've all talked in terms of 'managing' it at some point. It doesn't work, partly because of the "Ireland/British" language paradox I outlined above, and partly because Northern Ireland in the real world isn't just a sub-article of The Troubles: it is the UK. Admin do need to note how the UK government calls NI a "country of the UK" as it does for Wales etc. But sovereign governments are often rude to the MIWOT aren't they. (The 'many' Irish who object to the term).
The whole area is important to me because it stopped me in my editing tracks years ago, and I realised that nation is an area that Wikipedia fails badly on. I could see that it doesn't honour sovereignty the way the world it caters for does, and I did a lot of work on anthems etc to try and pave the way for better things. guess what? New accounts (like BritishWatcher) appeared from nowhere and followed me around. Because I'm in the middle, they were both from the two ridiculous All-Irish and All-British extremes. I maintain that the real amount of people on these extremes are quite small, and they do not remotely represent the real world.
Also (well you did ask me why it's so important to me) I've always said I don't want to see Wikipedia promote nationalism, so I'm often around when I see issues arise, making sure that the favourite nationalist areas are not exaggerated (esp regarding my own country Wales, where publicly it is still only around 15%). I'm open about this, and that I'm perfectly happy in my British skin - why hide it? Some editors really do believe that nationalism and sovereignty automatically share equally-weighted importance on Wikipedia. And let's face it, the rules are so convoluted and flexible why shouldn’t they? Most admin see Verify (and henceforth all reason) stopping after the mere appearance of a source - after which it's all either support or chess, no-matter the quality of the arguments. Wikipedia has got so flabby that the room for corruption is infinite, and it has never yet been adult enough to question whether the millions of non-editing readers are actually influenced by what they read on it or not. But it is only 10 years old I suppose.
Btw, (I'm not sure from your response if you spotted) LevenBoy above was being ironic. I wish you made Sarah's unblock terms clearer. I've decided just to regard her as a same-as-everyone editor again, as it'll be a lot easier for me at least that way. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's so much there that you aren't clearly communicating that I begin to doubt the value of discussing further with you. The points I would need short and clear answers on are:
    • Where is the evidence that readers as opposed to editors are inconvenienced by not having a long list of geographical terms linked in contravention of MoS in the lede?
    • Why is Ireland such a special case? Why is it any different from anywhere else?
    • What is wrong with just stating in the lede that this river is in Ireland?

I'm not stupid and I did realize that LevenBoy was pulling my leg. Couldn't you tell from the answer I gave? --John (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - there is absolutely no point at all in us both conversing. I'm absolutely dumbfounded you re-asked me all of that after I took the time to write what I did, and elsewhere for you too. It's impossible to communicate with someone who doesn't seem to have the faintest clue of any of the issues involved. Forget Mos John - look at IMos, it supercedes it on naming (for reasons that I really cannot explain to you again). Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe that WP:IMOS supports your position? All you need do then is make this argument concisely in article talk then. I don't see it myself, but maybe you can explain it clearly there. --John (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice Cailil had replied above btw - I have scrolling issues at the moment. I'll make a case per Imos on talk. I admit I haven't read IMos for a bit, and people do fiddle around with these things, possibly losing a little clarity (in fact that happens all the time on these issues - like losing the wood for the trees). Thinking about it, that's probably one of the reasons I haven't looked. The main factor with the ROI/IRE compromise (as I was recounted - I missed the grande event myself) was disambiguation, ROI always being favoured for that particular in-built quality. The only person I know who really can't accept the term is actually Sarah, who says she doesn't recognise it. Most people (like me), who also favoured using 'Ireland (state)' and 'Ireland (island)' with an 'Ireland' disam page (or some variant like it) are still perfectly happy with using ROI when it suits the text. (eg both Irelands appear in quick succession, or misunderstanding is likely to occurr). ROI used to be all over the place, but it keeps getting converted - which is why the Ireland disam page would have been so much easier, with "island of" the most useful disambiguer, and any piping added by those who know what they are doing. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise."
The problem was the single example given afterwards - it was limited, and effectively hid the preceding text (ie the text above). I'll look at putting in another example tomorrow. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GK Sierra[edit]

Hello, after a long while I managed to dig up some journalistic evidence that GK Sierra is in fact a real entity and deserves some attention and is noteworthy enough to have a presence on Wikipedia. RBC the largest "Times-like" magazine in Russa took the time to feature them in their May 2011 issue on page 53 (which can be seen here: http://www.docme.ru/doc/19609/rbk-n-05-2011. Inter-Ra.ru did a smilar feature on them which can be found here: http://www.inter-ra.ru/?p=21 (with the help of google translate it easy to get the gist of the article.) There is also a scanned document that has been made available via a Wikileak mirror that shows GK Sierra's name as a payee in an invoice presented to the CIA.

I have no doubt that the page needs some cleaning out and perhaps some attention from some experienced Wiki-gurus. But with some love and attention it could be nurtured into a respectable page. 76.27.233.153 (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably still hold out for an English source. --John (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Murder of Laci Peterson[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Laci Peterson, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  pablo 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011[edit]

Revive Matthew Zions article[edit]

The article for Matthew Zions should be recreated/revived. Matthew won the 2011 Saint-Omer Open on the European Tour. This win has him meeting WP:NSPORT under golf - heading 3 "[t]hey have won at least one professional golf tournament (ex: PGA Tour, LPGA, European Tour, Champions Tour)." You are the administrator that deleted this article, so I am contacting you about reviving it. RonSigPi (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to work something up if you have good sources. When I deleted it in 2007 there was no credible assertion of notability. Why not put something together in a sandbox first? --John (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new article. RonSigPi (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note of thanks[edit]

I'm an idiot. I left my computer running while I had friends over - not once, but twice - and one of them decided to vandalise Wiki using my IP. Figured I'd give you a quick thanks for being lenient :) 131.172.81.98 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, no harm done. --John (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States and state terrorism[edit]

Could you please remove the 0RR restriction on United States and state terrorism. The problem seems to have receded and two editors, User:BernieW650 and User:Tentontunic have been blocked as sockpuppets. TFD (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. --John (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The warning no longer appears no longer appears when editing. I will remove the warning from the talk page, which another editor added. TFD (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't get to this, I'm on holiday and traveling. I'll check in when I can. It's fine to take the warning off for now, I didn't put it there. --John (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing issues with ArbCom mails being posted..[edit]

Hey John.. long time no type. Sorry if I came across a bit brusque on Jimbo's page, but this is something we've known about for the last 36 hours and have been dealing with constantly. Needless to say, we're trying to find out who what where why and how.. and just as important, how to stop it from happening again. SirFozzie (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; no worries, I didn't detect anything in your tone but "business-like". I am glad it is being dealt with. --John (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston University Socking & threat of off-wiki harassment[edit]

Hi,


Can you have a look at the situation with regard to Kingston University, it has been the victim of a sock to get various controversies added (see Talk:Kingston University/Archive 2, Talk:Kingston University and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catface1965/Archive) a new editor (Lorifredrics), who may or may not be related to the blocked sock has made an effort to get some stuff added and in the processes has made what I think is a threat of off-wiki harassment here. Can you have a look and let me know what you think. Mtking (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I warned them. I will be busy for the next 24 h or so so please ask someone else if you require action faster than that. Thanks, --John (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image inquiry[edit]

John: Greetings in the summer of 2011. How does one "print images" (the commands) on wikipedia; and what's legal and present practice re the usage of same? Thanks.74.64.101.63 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)SLY111[reply]

Hi there. See WP:IMAGE and ask me if you need more help. --John (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011[edit]


Linking[edit]

Good edit. I always delink countries and most US states, but something that really bugs me is constructs like Florence, Italy or London, England. In article body I would delink the city and remove the country without thinking, but in infoboxes its seems you have to keep both, and both linked. And then words like painting, art, and other low value words are also, seeming, treasured in the boxes. I know you were active in the much needed delinking process a year or two back, any advice on these situation would be appreciated. Thanks. Ceoil 00:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's no exemption that I know of in WP:OVERLINK for infoboxes. London, England is a spillover from US editors for whom Richmond, California is both the accepted way to describe a location, and the naming style on WP for all but the largest cities. Linking like that is ok, but the Paris, France type is not. I do a lot of delinking and have never been challenged recently on it. --John (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok makes sence. Ceoil 00:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DaNaughtyKid[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know that this user has a COI on Bradley McIntosh (pls see here). —  Abhishek  Talk 20:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has also posted some personal information on my talk here. Could you please rev del that? —  Abhishek  Talk 20:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --John (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LevenBoy[edit]

I'd appreciate your input on this if you have a minute John--Cailil talk 17:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to have a look, Cailil. --John (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011[edit]

Input[edit]

Please keep an eye on this [11], there is an insane edit war going on with a argumentative newbie or a sock, very weird, TK and I, and Tyrenius, and Ceoil, and Tony the Tiger and RPD, have literally made thousands of edits to create that article and along comes this character. Your input will be appreciated, thanks...Modernist (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do.
Is there anything specific you'd like me to look at? I'm travelling just now and don't have a lot of time but I will be happy to have a look. --John (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment by User:FightingMac - I've been editing Wikipedia (for the most part pleasantly) for years. But his account begins in March 2011, and it doesn't add up, he's is very argumentative, and very edgy...Modernist (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not argumentative, not edgy, and not a sock-puppet, just merely asking for a cite for what looks like OR. This looks like harrassment to me. FightingMac (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your explanation for the observations that Modernist has made? --John (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can only surmise and if I were to do so frankly it would promptly be interpreted as a personal attack. I get the impression he objects to me wandering onto what he views as his personal patch. You might like to look at this for an example of his protectionism. He mistakes conviction and determination for aggression. I've noticed he writes very poor, scarcely grammatical copy. Beyond that I have no opinion I can decently repeat here. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I did not write that section, it was created by User:R.P.D., I added a slight correction to an IP addition a few years ago [12] - I stand by what I said...Modernist (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well conceded. I didn't check. But you did remove the {{citation needed}} template I placed there twice. As an example of the problem of not citing sources I can cite this which records his death as a result of "contracting" syphilis. In fact his death ceritificate recorded the condition as hereditary, as might well have been the case with his brother Vincent and even his sister Wil (who spent most of her later years in a santorium, apparently diagnosed with schizophrenia). As a lead editor on the article you never thought to challenge any of the assertions or ask for citations. It was I eventually made a properly sourced edit of Theo's death here. Last here from me. I think it's absolutely disgraceful you take this to an administrator in this fashion. FightingMac (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no lead editors here and everybody's contribution is valued as much as everybody else's, so long as they conform with WP:5P. When people are having a dispute they often ask for another pair of eyes. Why do you think it is disgraceful? --John (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I'd like to interject here. The biggest problem as far as I see it, aside from ongoing personal attacks and disruption, is described in this post I wrote (top of the thread). The issue isn't so much that reliable sources exist to verify the information, because they do, the issue is that FightingMac, a new account who has edited for years by his own admission, doesn't seem to like those sources. I appreciate having eyes on this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, link my post updated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now per FightingMac's request [13], we have a 3O editor, also a new account [14] yet quite clearly familiar with wiki policy. This situation definitely needs eyes. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, the guy lost his case [15] and continues to disrupt the article and attack the editors [16], thanks for your help...Modernist (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being friendly[edit]

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I know how working hard on Wikipedia can build up an appetite, so I hope this made your day. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --John (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011[edit]

Do not remove Terrorist from Terrorist Attacks[edit]

As the title says, dont do that. The article is categorized in Terrorism. 73 people died because of the Terror attacks. Do not trivialize their deaths by removing that. Wikipedia is not a place for political statements. Valenti85 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in article talk, a better place to discuss article content. --John (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'Botswanan'" is not a word"[edit]

I've been wanting to slap someone with a fish for a long time. Guess who gets the honor?

For not looking it up before you leaped...

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I've posted the links on my talk page. The Transhumanist 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I looked it up all right. Which links are those? --John (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Big Ditch[edit]

Nice to see you taking an interest in our Big Ditch John. It's an important Victorian engineering project that deserves a little bit of TLC. Malleus Fatuorum

Heh, thanks. I admit I saw it come up on your user talk and thought I would have a look. It's a beautiful article. Here's a thing; bill or Bill? Act or act? --John (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "Act" and "Bill" consistently, did I miss some? Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed a couple to lower case; it looks better to me that way. There may be a MoS thing about this. I guess it doesn't really matter so long as it's internally consistent. --John (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought so, this recommends lower case though notes that upper case can sometimes be found in sources too. --John (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a MoS thing. When I see "bill" I think of a demand for payment. When I see "Bill" I think of an Act of Parliament. In any event the article obviously needs to be consistent, which it hopefully now is. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's like "Major Smith" versus "Smith had been a major". In context there is little ambiguity. Check it out, it's rather compelling (and pity me, for this is the sort of thing I find fascinating):

The terms "act of Congress", "act of Parliament", and "act" in that sense are common, not proper nouns. In accordance with MOS:CAPS (Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms) and the most widespread use in reputable sources as recorded (not prescribed) by all major UK and US dictionaries and at least 2 major encyclopedias (Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, Longman, American HeritageRandom House, Cambridge American, Merriam-WebsterColumbialBritannica), the term "act (of Congress/Parliament)" is best spelled lowercase when it's a common noun and not part of the name of a specific act.

We should add a note that many legislatures and many members of the legal profession and at least some encyclopedias (Halsbury's Laws, Butterworth's Concise Australian Legal Dictionary) do not follow this most widespread usage in reputable sources recorded by dictionaries and encyclopedias and instead often uppercase "act" (and other terms) even when used as a common noun. Nevertheless, for example the drafting rules of the (US) National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws specifically say

  • Use lower case letters for internal references within the same act, article, part, or section.
    • Examples: “An individual who violates a provision of this [act] . . .”. “The procedures set forth in this [article] . . .”. “Except as otherwise provided in this section, . . . ”.
  • Do not capitalize the word “act” when used to refer to the act being drafted.

And the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual says

  • In the short or popular titles of acts (Federal, State, or foreign) the first word and all important words are

capitalized.

Revenue Act; Walsh-Healey Act; Freedom of Information Act; Classification Act; but the act...

--John (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be surprised to find that I completely disagree. Consider this sentence: "The act allowed abortions to continue for many years". I made that up, but what could it be referring to? Something someone had done or to an Act of Parliament? Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that could be important in a standalone sentence, but in context it would be obvious from the previous sentence saying something like "In 1928 the Selective Termination Act was passed by a slim majority." I've seen it done both ways but it makes more sense on this project to favour lower case as that is our house style. No big deal in any case. --John (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, like every other on English topics, I'd argue very strongly for "Bill" and "Act". There's no need to depend on context when the meaning can be made perfectly clear by a proper use of English. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the beauty of English is that there's no equivalent of the Académie française to tell us what is and isn't a "proper" use of it. We must therefore make it all up as we go along and that is what allows it to grow and develop so powerfully. Grammar and usage are therefore always descriptive and never prescriptive in English. Nevertheless, I'd highlight that Cambridge, Collins, and Longman all seem to disagree with your view here. German is the best on this issue; it capitalises all nouns, and also manages without the apostrophe, another bugbear of mine on here when it's badly used. --John (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
German avoids the need for apostrophes by having cases, just as Latin does. Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, genau. Which is better in a way, as you can't hear an apostrophe, it only exists in writing. On the other hand, it gives a whole new category of grammatical errors. Germans mix up genitive and dative declensions all the time in speech but nobody dies, just as nobody dies whether we use "act" or "Act" on the article. --John (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we'll stick with "Act" then shall we? I was always rather troubled when having to learn a language that assigned genders to inanimate objects, but to discover that German considers young girls to be neuter was a step too far. Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatical gender is, as they say out here, wack. Linguistically it's a way to generate greater redundancy (more clues, fewer mistakes in understanding, even when the message is not clearly heard). If you think German is bad (and it is, for a common European language), you should try Bantu languages. Setswana, for example, has I think 18 noun classes. To give you an idea, one is reserved for undesirable things. Their word for white people is a member of this class. As for Acts, as I said, I am fine with lower or upper case, so long as it is internally consistent. --John (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. Is there a Setswana wiki, and if there is, is that word considered to be a personal attack? Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is, but it is tiny. Lekgoa is the word and it is as potentially offensive as nigger or wetback, though of course context is everything in these things. --John (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complicated story. I'd never heard the term "wetback" before, and if someone called me a nigger I'd just laugh and point them to Ali G. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking right, me too. Ali G has not yet reached California; one meets people here who act like that character with a straight face. In regard to race relations, as in many others, the US is about 50 years behind Europe. --John (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 01 August 2011[edit]

Forth Valley Royal Hospital, a small favour[edit]

You were kind enough to fix up a few issues with this article earlier today, which has emboldened me to ask for a favour.

When I opened the GA review a few days ago the article looked like this, and to be honest I didn't hold out much hope for it. In fact I almost failed it on the spot, but I'm glad I didn't, as the nominator buckled down and produced the goods. My slight worry now though is that I may in the process have done so much on the article myself that my judgement has become clouded; I'm not asking you to do a second GA review or anything like that, just for your impression of the current state of the article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, let me take a look. --John (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John, I've gone ahead and listed it now. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, any time. --John (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

What did you revert my edit for?

Its a proven fact that Ulster is a unionist name for Northern Ireland , Why does it say on that page Mary_McAleese She is the first president to come from Northern Ireland and the province of Ulster; They roughly mean the same thing , it would of been better to say the United Kingdom or just leave it at N.I or overseas. Goldblooded (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Check the definitions of Ulster and Northern Ireland, they are not coterminous, even if a lazy minority have used them that way. --John (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, But still it would be easier to just put shes the only president from the UK. Goldblooded (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easier, but less accurate. Geographical names can be enormously important on Irish articles and it's best not to mess with them if they are accurate, NPOV and sourced. --John (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V7-sport again[edit]

Hi, and thanks for the good work here at Wikipedia. Since my past blocks concerning edit warring i have taken the lesson and do not repeatedly revert especially when the topic is under discussion on the talk page. Unfortunately other did not learn their lesson and keep disrupting WP through edit warring and even WP:POINT. May i ask you to have a look at Talk:Naser_Jason_Abdo#Edit warring. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn been been wikihouding the hell out of me and claiming everything I do is a crime against humanity in a ham-handed attempt to get me blocked for... well... anything. His wikette alert fell a little flat so you are plan B. V7-sport (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong and that nobody at Wikiquette did address the long list of misbehavior you had already shown just before the edit warring makes it even worst. I brought it there to solve the dispute nothing else. Unfortunately you showed even stronger disruptive behavior after that and started edit warring and disrupted the discussion WP:POINT as listed here Talk:Naser_Jason_Abdo#Edit warring. You were edit warring and you were disrupting Wikipedia WP:POINT. Do not falsely blame other for your misbehavior. I have learned my lesson but you did not. IQinn (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the disagreement you have been having. I note that you have been in dispute about a See also section on Naser Jason Abdo. It would be best to try to seek other opinions than to continue your disagreement. Most times when two people are talking past each other as you have been doing, it's better to disengage after two or three comments and ask for other opinions. I will continue to look at your disagreement and try to come up with more suggestions. --John (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other people got already involved but that did not stop him from edit warring and disrupting per WP:POINT and that is the issue here. IQinn (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I have commented in talk and edited the article, as I find I agree with you and Connolley on this issue. Please try to disagree more productively or at least more concisely in future. --John (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So "see also" sections are now not allowed? Where is this Policy? What were linked were other acts of terrorism/jihad committed by Americans, it makes perfect sense to link them. V7-sport (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you John, i think that is very good advice. IQinn (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have re read WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP, the rationale for removing the "see also" section. I honestly can't find justification for removing it. (I note that they both have "see also" sections.) If you can point out the relevant passage I would appreciate it. V7-sport (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section of BLP is "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". By making this link between the living subject (who has not been convicted of any crime), and these other incidents, without giving a reliable source which also makes the connection, you were in flagrant breach of WP:BLP. Even were such sources to be found, it would still take a talkpage consensus for the material to be included. As WP:SEEALSO points out, we can only use material in a See also section that could be included in the article but for considerations of space. As this material is unreferenced negative material on a BLP, it clearly could not. The COATRACK comes in because including this material could give the impression that all these incidents are part of a larger conspiracy, something which again no evidence has been supplied to support. I hope that helps you see why we cannot use the material you wished to include. --John (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The relevant section of BLP is "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"."
These were links to other articles. If there is a problem with their sourcing that could have been addressed.
  • "By making this link between the living subject (who has not been convicted of any crime),
So if he were to have been given due process, then a see also section wold be OK?
  • and these other incidents, without giving a reliable source which also makes the connection, you were in flagrant breach of WP:BLP."
The connection is that they were Americans involved in islamic terrorism.
  • As WP:SEEALSO points out, we can only use material in a See also section that could be included in the article
What it says is "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one"
  • this material could give the impression that all these incidents are part of a larger conspiracy, something which again no evidence has been supplied to support."
Is that to say there hasn't been a problem with islamic terrorism?
I don't want to beat this into the ground but the implications of your decision are that any editor can pretty much remove a see also link from an article with someone who is alive in it. V7-sport (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a baseless speculation, right. Here's a thought experiment for you. Someone adds to the See also section on our George W. Bush article the following topics as links: Draft dodger, War criminal, Alcoholism. Do you think that would be ok? If not, why not? --John (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some presumptions going on there about what I would take issue with that aren't quite accurate, John. To be clear, if there were a list of "self proclaimed alcoholics" or "politicians who stayed in the national guard through the Vietnam war" I wouldn't take issue with that as it's verifiable and accurate. It wouldn't be baseless speculation as it would be easily verified by reliable sources. I don't think what I had posted was the equivalent to Draft dodger, War criminal etc.
Looking forward and to preempt any mass deletions, would a finding of guilt or innocence through due process change this? Would it be correct remove see alsos from artcles like the Haditha massacre Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre Deh Bala wedding party bombing etc, since there has been no finding of guilt and the incidents all involve living people?V7-sport (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see, it is an analogy and not a like-for-like comparison, but I would oppose those See alsos on the GWB article because I think if anything they should be linked in the article body, with sources, and with the consensus of the community that they fulfill BLP and NPOV. If they cannot, there is no way they should be See alsos. It's all too easy by adding See alsos to create aspersions; I think I once took off a link to Vidkun Quisling from some page where someone wanted to create the impression that the person was a traitor or collaborator. Far better than adding See alsos would be to find a decent source that explicitly compares the events you wish to add to the subject of the article, and argue in talk for its inclusion in the main body of the article. I think this is the direction you should go with it. A category is another viable possibility which has already been raised. --John (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just to be sure I have my mind right going forward see alsos are to be avoided, especially if they involve living people per WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK and WP:SEEALSO, correct. What's our position on templates like this and this? V7-sport (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think of See alsos like external links. External links are only to be added where they could in future be used to reference material in the article. The EL section is thus a kind of holding pen for references. Similarly, the See also section should only be for internal links that could later be included in the body of the article. --John (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So If I were to create a template like Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror of American islamists who have been charged with acts of terrorism that would be fine. V7-sport (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not be fine. That would breach NPOV and probably WP:POINT as well, in my opinion. --John (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see how a guy could get the idea that things aren't being enforced evenly? V7-sport (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. It's a consequence of being in a collaborative project where the product and the consensus-based understandings we come to on it take precedence over any individual editor's feelings. Hell, I've been here over 5 years, am an admin, yet I lose arguments all the time. Sometimes it's a long game, and sometimes we just have to accept that we are in a minority. There are always central venues you can go to to evaluate and shape consensus as well. --John (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think that your interpretation of the rules in this case is pretty stringent, however if those are the parameters in which we are to operate then I will edit accordingly. I think it's only right that the rules be evenly applied. There is perceived "consensus" on something until it's challenged and not a lot of editors challenge the bull that makes it up here because they are met with endless tendentious editing (in this case from Mullah Rain Man) that is geared to ensure that when they misrepresent what a source says, post fringe material or remove something that they don't want to be made aware of people just walk away. Something like this... or this and literally dozens of other instances I could rattle off would appear to have "consensus" but are obviously not in keeping with the policies as outlined. What's the point of having policies if they are only enforced with the non squeaky wheels?V7-sport (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. As the metaphor "squeaky wheel" implies, it is stressful to take the lead on changing things. If there's a specific problem with one of the instances you've named, tell me what it is and if I agree I will help you change it. --John (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that John. The links that I provided (as well as many of the links they link to) don't conform to the standards as outlined here for see also sections and the template is chock full of OR. I'll look into it in the coming week and if the squeaking gets shrill I'll come knocking. Fair enough? V7-sport (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it is always a pleasure to see you. --John (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- Same here. V7-sport (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31.47.14.109[edit]

Hi, thanks for your 31 hour block of 31.47.14.109 the other day (User_talk:31.47.14.109#August_2011) but they didn't seem to get the message. They have just repeated the BLPCAT violation at Bashar al-Assad. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked. --John (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --John (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help at Sylvia Young Theatre School[edit]

Hi John. I noticed that you just made a clean-up edit at Sylvia Young Theatre School and since you're in the area, I'd like to ask your advice about the recent discussion on the talk page: Talk:Sylvia Young Theatre School#List of names. Do you have an opinion on how the list of unreferenced names should be handled? GFHandel ♬  04:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and have so commented at talk. --John (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John (again). An anonymous editor is continually adding a name into the alumni list. What can be done to stop this vandalism? I guess either block the IP or semi-protect the page? Is there something you can do, or should I take this up somewhere else? GFHandel ♬  02:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess something also needs to be done about Talk:Sean_Borg? GFHandel ♬  03:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected two weeks and deleted, respectively. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acting so quickly. GFHandel ♬  03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. --John (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the troubles have started again. I've reverted a couple of times, but I'm sure it will continue. GFHandel ♬  22:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so slow in replying. I see Fae has dealt with it this time. --John (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problems at all John. Fæ just did what I did: revert the vandal. Anyhow it seems to have stopped, so fingers crossed for tomorrow. Is there precedence for this sort of thing (where someone just keeps coming back to try to impose an edit on a page)? GFHandel ♬  05:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Roma in Bulgaria[edit]

Hi John. You recently expressed an interest in ensuring that Romani-related articles are written to the best standards. There is currently a discussion between myself and just one other editor at the above page. I think some fundamental policy issues are involved and would appreciate any outside views there, from you and/or whoever else might be watching this page. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. --John (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011[edit]

Short Stack[edit]

Hi John, I noticed you recently banned a vandalism only account which had edited this article. Short Stack do seem to polarise opinion, and as their articles attract a large amount of vandalism; I was wondering if some sort of article protection would be useful? The band have also attracted a single purpose account User:John Cadaver, whoes edits are very questionable.

I'm an independent observer of the Short Stack article - know nothing about the band, haven't heard their music, and would probably hate it if I did! memphisto 11:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article was rather crufty. I took a quick hack and will return to tighten it further. Thanks, --John (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Best[edit]

Hi John, hope you're well this evening. Noticed you reverted my (admittedly bold) change on the George Best article with an edit summary of "we're not Britannica, thank goodness". I was always under the impression Britannica was considered a reliable source – it's certainly being used to confirm a number of nationalities/ethnicities across Wikipedia – but it appears you're not convinced. Could you elaborate? Best, JonChappleTalk 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Britannica is, like Wikipedia itself, a tertiary source, as it distills material from secondary sources like newspapers, magazines and books. Primary sources would be things like birth records and personal websites etc. We should source our material from secondary sources predominantly. Primary sources may occasionally be used for non-controversial matters of fact. Other tertiary sources like Britannica may be indicative but we certainly aren't bound to follow their lead. For a footballer who has played for Northern Ireland, it seems misleading to call him a British footballer, especially given the sensitivities around the topic of Irish nationality. I hope this makes it clear why I undid your edit, well-intentioned as I accept it was. Incidentally, it is morning where I am. --John (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I hope you're having a good morning, then! ;) You're right that Irish, and especially Northern Irish, nationality can be a complex thing, but it just looks ridiculous, to me at least, to completely skirt around the matter; especially when he's played for the Northern Irish team. I'll see what else I can find. Thanks again. 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears my signature has disappeared. How odd! Let's try again. JonChappleTalk 18:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your spirit of compromise. Let's think some more and discuss at article talk towards a solution. Incidentally, this may be of interest to you. --John (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I'm all-too-familiar with that essay! :) JonChappleTalk 20:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sorry if that comes across as patronizing then. It wasn't intended so. --John (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However[edit]

Wanted to stop by and thank you for posting this. I revise my writing heavily, it takes forever, and the first drafts are always just that - drafts. Simply looking for instances of "however" in a long page and fixing, is a good way to rewrite in small chunks. It's a new trick! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Truthkeeper88. It's always good to have one's efforts recognized. We should all give out more barnstars or even just leave nice notes like the one you left. Take care, --John (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like an informal competition, 24 is the record to beat. Barnstar or a beer for the winner? --John (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in semi-holiday mode and popping in and out at the moment - did you find 24 on the first FAC you looked at? I'm too lazy to look at contribs at the moment. Anyway, yeah let's have a competition - either barnstar or beer is fine. I foresee a "oppose per the however rule" popping up at FAC! Anyway, I think Malleus brings up a good point - I've opposed on prose and sometimes the reactions are enough to drive me from reviewing, which is what he's running into. You should review more - FAC always needs reviewers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel Request[edit]

Hi John, saw you were recently online. If you still are, can you please revdel this[17] whole page? I've already blanked it. An anon (2nd time) is outing another, this time with links to their Facebook profile[18]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --John (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks! Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome. --John (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Hello John! I hope you enjoy this yummy treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! What did I do to deserve that? --John (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

To go with the cookie, and pointing out very early Saturday morning disasters :P Cerejota (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thank you. I was feeling thirsty so that will come in handy. --John (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian battleship São Paulo[edit]

Thanks very much for your copyediting here. I really do appreciate it. I saw how many "however"s you removed... guess I should start watching for that when I write! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it is a fascinating article, thank you for writing it. --John (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your semi-protection of a talk page[edit]

I request that you unprotect the S&P talk page. See Talk:Standard & Poor's#Page protection completely blocks the anon editor (and I agree with you about threading, so let's keep the discussion there). JamesMLane t c 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt action! JamesMLane t c 20:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --John (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher, Media depictions[edit]

John, I would be interested to hear your opinion about this. Best Mick gold (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in article talk. --John (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tags at 2011 England riots[edit]

Perhaps you missed but the criteria were specifically addressed in a thread above th eone you posted. The only reason there is a separate thread is because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues on the part of User:WWGB. Now, I am not saying my Position Is the Only Correct One, nor that WWGB is the only one with his position, but we need to be fair when adjudicating who is edit warraning and who isn't. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a bright orange warning sign of someone who is prone to edit war. --Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gise-354x and Climatic Research Unit email controversy[edit]

I write here since you welcomed this recently created user account. This user has violated Arbcom sanction 1RR and WP:3RR (some diffs, as there is more, this was like 15RR at least:[19][20][21][22]) I have warned this user here. What are your views on how to proceed? should I report or let it slide for now? This is fairly egregious breach, but also a very new account that had not been warned, but also inexplicably detailed and knowledgeable edit summaries raise my spidey sense... --Cerejota (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to it, you could post at WP:AE or WP:AN/I. --John (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V7-Sport again (2)[edit]

Could you please tell him to slow down. He is disrupting again. He broke already WP:BRD and is extreme POV pushing over a large number of articles. Any attempt to slow him down and to discuss the topics in a central place has failed. He is gaming the system WP:GAME. Everything can be challenged but please in a civil way with community input. I also suggest he might summit the template to TFD so that we get wider community involvement. IQinn (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite i ask him and i left him a message on his talk page he is not stopping with his large scale POV pushing. Let's have a central place to discuss that in a civil manner. He is clearly WP:GAMEing the system right now to get his POV implemented against the rules. Now he even violating WP:BLP on a page of a well known torture victim. Dilawar_(torture_victim). Sure we have all our POV but i think he has crossed the line and he is WP:GAMEing the system and should be blocked. One of these types of editors drives away 1000 other editors that could help us to build this encyclopedia. IQinn (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited V7-sport over here so we can chat about it like gentlemen. I warn you both that I am restricted in my ability to contribute at present so I may hand this off to another admin to look at unless we are able to resolve this matter amicably here. I hope we can do that. --John (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been removing original research and mischaracterization of the sources. (Something that Iqinn does continually. Yes, I have diffs if you would like.) I've explained what I have done and Iqinn just wants to get me trapped in another endless, infinite loop of re-explaining and re-explaining. In terms of violating the brd cycle he either doesn't get that you can't add unsourced material to BLP articles or just doesn't care. His idea of "BRD" is removing POV templates [23][24] without being able to address the issue for them being there.

This is a POV coatrack. Removing a list of movies which aren't "controversies" or a list of "Forced disappearances" where there is no credible source calling them "Forced disappearances" shouldn't take an act of congress. Yet this clown has systematically reverted everything I have done this evening. (just like the last time you had to address this.) Note the edit summary "please stop removing until the started discussion about "Forced disappearance" has been finished on the talk page" [25] Ive explained it to him over and over on the talk page. Please explain to this person that you need to have some sources to say what you want to say. V7-sport (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's please take the content part of this to Template talk:Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror#Reboot? Can there please not be any need for a conduct part of this discussion? I feel like I know the two of you too well to block you, and should anything like that be called for I would have to ask someone else in to help. Please, please, let's not head in that direction. "Jaw jaw is better than war, war". --John (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to v7's allegations) Did you even noticed that i did not create the template and did not add all the information you removed? No, you did not explain most of your edits and a lot of these "explanations" are based on misinterpretation of our policies WP:GAME. This template is: "This is a POV coatrack" I have suggested to put this template up on WP:TFD as i do not think that this is the case. Any problem with that? That would be a way to solve the issue not your large scale POV edits over dozens of article in a very short time. The issue is that you you broke WP:BRD and that you did not stop your rampage over a large amount of articles performing the same edit despite the fact that you have been ask to wait the outcome of discussions that had already been started. That causes extreme stress to other editors and is highly disruptive to our work here. IQinn (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He just doesn't get it. Either by willfully being obtuse or by not being able to understand. Either way, It's a colossal waste of time trying to come to some kind of consensus with someone who has an extra "go to" line in his code. V7-sport (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I try my best to engage you in a civil content focused discussion but it seems to me that you are unable to except anything that does not meet your "strong" POV. I have suggested solutions but you did not even reply to these suggested solutions and just used another ad hominem. Sorry but i can only repeat again. I personally think we should block editors like you who refuse to engage into civil content focused debates and work towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this conversation, and I'm strongly considering simply indefing both of them and being done with this. I don't see any sign that the edit warring in articles these two edit will ever let up.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned my lesson and i was not edit warring. That is simply false. IQinn (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've reverted V7-Sport 17 times in a single day, including double reverts on an article.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of this is edit warring. Often he even removed large chunks of contend in violation of WP:PRESERVE. There is nothing wrong to re-add the information with the necessary tags. IQinn (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear that the concept is still lost on Iquinn. Both parties indefed.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that was fast. I can see the rationale for blocking all right, although I am really sorry it worked out this way. --John (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honsuki5[edit]

It might just be a coincidence, but a brand new user, user:Honsuki5, has taken up V7-sport's careless editing practices, on some of the same pages. He has been deleting material by the paragraph and even blanked whole sections. In the first case I checked, the deleted material was easily verifiable through a web-search. Thundermaker (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I left them a message. You might want to add the references you found to the article(s) so this cannot happen again. --John (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE drive newsletter[edit]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You messed up the links in this article[edit]

Hey, I noticed that in this edit of Alaska Airlines, you messed up some of the wikilinks in that article. I had them all PERFECT, now you go and mess them up. I'm not the only one who's trying to make sure things are linked to perfection, User:Sp33dyphil is also working on this.

so could you please go back to the article and fix all the links you messed up? Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an example of a link you think is messed up please. It looks ok to me. --John (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several examples: In a photo caption of a photo that depicted a 737-400 landing (1990s section), you had it link to the Boeing 737-400F. Alaska does operate some converted freighters, but that picture did not depict a freighter. Previously, I had it linked correctly to the Boeing 737 Classic article and 737-400 section (in the format Boeing 737 Classic#737-400. Similarly, you had a 737-900 link to Boeing 737-900 instead of how it previously was, Boeing 737 Next Generation#Boeing 737-900. The latter is the proper format. You also did this with links to the MD-83, 737-700, and 737-800. All the links you changed were formatted correctly before. See what I mean? —Compdude123 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that's funny. These were collateral changes made by Reflinks with the main focus of fixing references. I am not sure what you mean by "the proper format"; so long as the links point to the right target, who cares? --John (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's "the proper format" per se, but it's just the format that I've seen used by others. Anyway, it seems strange that Reflinks would mess with links. It really shouldn't have touched anything other than references. Darn, now I have to go and fix the links :| —Compdude123 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I may ask around to see if it is a recognized bug. --John (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy[edit]

Sorry sir, no excuse.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and it's nice of you to say so. I should have checked too. No worries. --John (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Leto[edit]

Sorry, but on this article there isn't any gossip. See WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPSOURCES; Entertainment Weekly, msnbc.com and UGO Networks are reliable non-gossip sources (and I can also find this or this). You are removing sourced material without reason.--Earthh (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, as I said in my edit summary, was that this material breaches WP:UNDUE and also in my opinion WP:BLP. I suggest posting at Talk:Jared Leto and perhaps WP:BLPN if you feel strongly that this material needs to be included. --John (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy del?[edit]

Hi John I saw you were online - would you consider speedy deleting this - Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I agreed with the reasoning to delete. --John (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. --John (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Will, do. Thanks for the heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somaliweyn10 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 England riots[edit]

Thanks for reverting the infobox location details in 2011 England riots. You might not have noticed yet that they've been reverted and changed again twice since. To try to stabilise this, and raise another closely related issue, I've started a discussion topic here: Talk:2011 England riots#Location details, widespread pattern of arrests. I'd be grateful if you would come and comment. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 01:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commented in article talk. Thanks. --John (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - again[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotfi Zadeh[edit]

Hi. I think the only reason that I put the quoted sentence in the lede was to forestall editors from quick scanning the lede and, seeing nothing about nationality or ethnicity, putting in their favorite, whichever one that might be. Logically and formally, your grouping is correct, but I think having that in the lede provides a kind of protection from that behavior. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Would a hidden note do the job? --John (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would, indeed. I already have one in there about his birthplce being the Azerbaijan SSR and not the Russian Empire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the work you've done on it. --John (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind continuing to keep an eye on the article, as the other editor has continued to attempt to add in poorly sources or unsourced information. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, that's understood. --John (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John - I understand that you communicated extensively with Beyond My Ken before about the page Lotfi Zadeh. I appreciate the efforts of BMK, as well as yours, to keep it from being vandalized, or somehow worsened. Truly, I do appreciate that, and that's why I've been very much editing in good faith, as well as dealing in good faith, with BMK when he started to revert my good edits - removing verifiable and reliable information, engaging in a revert war, and calling on his friend William M. Connolley to help him out. However, this went on too far - he brushed all my pleas and appeals aside, and now in an attempt to overlook all his mistakes and violations that I pointed out on the admin noticeboard, he tries to use William Connolley as well as your name to show some consensus and deny my edits, as well as to threaten me indirectly, in the context of requesting a warning to me, by hinting that you are an admin.[26] My request - can you please see my edits on the article about Lotfi Zadeh, and then verify my sources, by reading where appropriate, and watch/listen where necessary? I think any neutral and fair person would see that BMK is plain unreasonable and in violation of multiple Wikipedia rules in his revert warring and making this into a big scandal for no reason whatsoever. Then perhaps you could help make sure that no one removes those verifiable sources, or if sources are removed, the information is not (I only cited those sources to comply with rules of verifiability and prevent any wrongful accusations and abuse). --Saygi1 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe John and I have ever communicated before about Lotfi Zadeh, although I could certainy be wrong about that.

@John: I would like you to know that I mentioned your name in connection to this issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that BMK and I have never communicated on this topic prior to the post at the top of this section. Actually, I don't think we have ever spoken on any subject but I could be wrong; I've been here a long time. The content dispute is best discussed at the central noticeboard and the article talk page. --John (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've been doing that, too. --Saygi1 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring report[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactController_reported_by_User:Cerejota_.28Result:_.29 I take no great pleasure, but it had to come to this. We tried, its all I can say. --Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree both that this is very unfortunate and that it is necessary at this point. --John (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mile High City[edit]

You're right that I have over-reacted in some of my comments, but I have to say that I think this is someone we've seen before. The Denver page is on my watchlist (along with many articles about specific neighborhoods and suburbs) because of a long-ago pleas for help received from an editor who was at a loss on how to address persistent efforts (mostly by an ever-changing parade of IPs who had a pattern of making a lot of edits to the same article in quick succession, but also occasionally by registered users with that same editing pattern) to represent the city and specific neighborhoods/suburbs in a negative light, including insertion of crime statistics and demographic data that appeared to be sourced but that proved (through a sometimes complicated research effort) not to be valid. I haven't seen that particular behavior recently. However, there had been a lot of activity in the Denver article in the last 2 days -- when I looked into it I was saw the huge section on "radioactive contamination" and the large number of IP edits as another manifestation of the familiar pattern of presenting Denver in a bad light, and I saw that Plazak had been sparring with the IPs over it. I chose to remove the section and immediately semi-protect the article -- I saw (and still see) what I did as a single action to remove something that clearly didn't belong in that form and to prevent further warring, not as two separate actions.

I don't believe this is the same user as the Denver crime-promoter, but the behavior of taking a complaint to dispute resolution before discussing it and remarks like "your unilateral actions to delete the article outright were heavy-handed, and not what I'm used to seeing from a Wikipedia administrator" and knowedgable references to "admin status" and "sockpuppetry," as well as the statement "I created this ID to help fix the Denver content" lead me to think that this is someone who has had other user names and is mostly interested in disruption. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder at that myself. Still, I thought these additions were interesting, and, if they are well-sourced and conform to due weight, I think we can add something of them to the article. Unless we are into Voldemort territory, which I haven't seen any indication of? Thanks for the considered reply. --John (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do know a fair amount of the history of Rocky Flats. There truly is some ugly history there. However, that doesn't change the fact that it didn't happen in Denver. If a chemical factory in Elizabeth, New Jersey, were to blow up, the explosion would not be discussed in an article about New York City. Same thing goes for Rocky Flats and Denver... The ugly history belongs in the article about Rocky Flats, not in the article about the nearest big city.
As for the content that was put in the Denver article, I've starting looking into the information and the cited sources. Much of what was presented in the article as factual information turns out to be based on assertions made in materials from various activist groups (titles like "The Industry's Underside -- Bomb Production at Rocky Flats: Death Downwind") -- not reliable NPOV sources. Other neutral sources exist that document the history, although they might not be nearly as easy to locate as the activist material that is mirrored all over the internet. The state of Colorado reports from which the cancer risk graph was extracted are one set of sources that I would consider reliable and neutral. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried just asking them on their talk. It's interesting and quite compelling what you say about the sources; of course we do not automatically exclude sources that are not NPOV, it is more nuanced than that. I don't feel as strongly as you do about the necessity of excluding this material from the article, but I'm sure we can figure something out in talk. --John (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Kant[edit]

Thanks for the recent reversion, I am an interested contributor. I like the way you assumed good faith, minimising conflict. Your home page is very helpful re the values of Wikipedia. Isn't it interesting to see how Wikipedia entries seem to top more and more of Google search results. TonyClarke (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice comment Tony. Most of what we do here revolves around assuming good faith, although it is the hardest thing to do sometimes. Good to meet you, and let me know if I can ever be a help to you. --John (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ka-50 "Black Shark" edit[edit]

Good job on the recent edit of the page! :)

However, you made an error... Replacement of: "A second batch of 36 helicopters will start rolling off the production line in early 2012." with: "A second batch of 36 helicopters will start production in early 2012." significantly altered not only the content of the sentence, but also the implied result. While the difference may seem only skin deep, analysis of the sentences leads to a different conclusion. "Rolling of the production line" implies a finished product, while "Start of production" implies the beginning of the product manufacturing. Considering the long lead-in times for complex products, such as Ka-50, the difference is only further amplified. Furthermore, such a change is in direct violation of the quoted source and its content.

I hope you see my point. Do not hesitate to contact me in order to discuss it.

Regards, Ltr,ftw (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, nice point. I didn't like "rolling off" as it didn't sound encyclopedic. I'll take this to article talk, I think. Cheers. --John (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citing your lack of action, I took the liberty of changing the sentence to a more "appropriate" description. I settled on using "will be inducted to service in early 2012". I hope this is acceptable. Regards, Ltr,ftw (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Sorry I got distracted and didn't make it along to article talk after all. --John (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Stupid" and "silly"[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi John, thanks for your note, and I see that Rjanag really doesn't get it, on his talk page. Here are two diffs: "stupid" and after I complained to him, "silly". Granted, he's done it indirectly by applying these words to my statements or ideas, or in the conditional, but offensive they still are, and I believe the WP:CIVIL policy covers these usages. Rjanag does a lot of work at DYK, and his investment in the status quo, which many editors want to reform, is getting mixed up with WP:OWNERSHIP a little, I think.

While we're at it, there's a troublesome editor who writes well and is clearly gifted, but who is a bit over the top in pushing the idea of certain formatting practices (I see Art Lapella is copping it mildly at WT:MOSLINK right now)—but that's not the point here. I felt threatened by his posts on my page (I felt stalked, and note that two other editors complained to me of the same), and unwisely edit-summaried "removing vomit". OK, I later apologised to him at his talk page, but it's what he did to that thread that I suspect is way way in breach of policy. First, I was ridiculed for apologising, and then he returned to change the title of the thread so that I appear to self-announce as "an utter arse". I note that he states "there's no end to this man's cunty idiocy", and refers to my "more genuinely crappy edits". I wonder whether this user could be warned to tone down his angry statements, and that it's almost certainly a breach of the talk-page guidelines to change someone else's title to falsify or ridicule them? Tony (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's shocking. I have a lot of respect for this editor but I will have a word, all right. Once again, I am deeply sorry that you have been subjected to this abuse. --John (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I see Tony has already dug up the diff for you, but as you can see I never called him stupid, I said "it would be stupid of him to say X in the future". That is clearly not the same thing. I also don't see why I'm being accused of being "invested in the status quo" when I'm the only editor there actually working to implement all the changes that Tony and others are asking for. I have nothing further to say on the topic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved in the content disagreement you have had, but I strongly recommend you don't use the word "stupid" about editors or their actions. --John (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to get involved, then don't get involved. Finding one message that you can jump on and say "ooh, a mean word!", taking it out of context, and coming to slap my wrist about it is maybe a way of staying uninvolved, but it's also not constructive. Especially when you deliberately overlook equally rude behavior from your Wikipedia friends who are involved in the dispute, like the one above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider John to be uninvolved, as I understand he has an existing undertaking never to block one of the participants in this little argument about DYK. Repeatedly waving around threats of blocks for civility at one party, while apparently being self-limited from doing the same on another, is not uninvolved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what has Malleus done in "this little argument" that's at all blockworthy? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History teaches us that if I'd done anything worth of a block then I'd already be blocked, but the ineluctable fact remains that I've been blocked repeatedly for far less that Rjanag's unacceptable "you're too stupid for your own good" and similar recent comments. But there's one difference between us. Can you guess what that is? Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion Demiurge. If you think Malleus has done something actionable, please present a diff. Otherwise please let Rjanag take his warning in peace. --John (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given your previous undertaking, there would be no purpose in presenting such a diff to you. But I'll leave you to continue your discussion, and hope it's beneficial in some way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words you can't find one, but want to create the idea that one exists? Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, my purpose was to correct Rjanag's apparent misapprehension that John is uninvolved here. I didn't see your latest barrage of comments at WT:DYK as any ruder than your normal behaviour (oh, and even just now, there's more of it; describing another editor's work as "a bit like a painting by a chimpanzee", lovely), and you don't get blocked for that.
But I do find that an editor commenting that someone "would be stupid" to continue with a certain viewpoint, is no more glaringly deserving of a block than accusing another editor of dishonesty; "You have simply displayed your own dishonesty".
I guess this is why some people refer to it as the "holy civility policy"; a lot of interpretation by high priests going on, and the favoured few benefit from that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely uninvolved here as I have no previous involvement in the DYK argument. Your opinions on what is worse than what and what is as bad as what, are noted. I think my own stance is that I would not block for a breach of WP:CIVIL, but I would block for a clear cut breach of WP:NPA. I would then post at AN/I for review of my actions by other admins and that would be your chance to complain if you felt I was behaving in a non-neutral way. I really and sincerely hope that none of this will be necessary and that people will back off and disengage. --John (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, although I recuse from personally blocking Malleus, I would be happy to forward any abuse he may have perpetrated, with diffs, either to another admin or to a noticeboard if I agree with you that it is blockworthy. Do yo have such a diff to present? --John (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand Demiurge that honesty is unwelcome here, and I endeavour to offer as little of it as possible, so as not to upset the administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly potential[edit]

John...this line of questioning appears to be headed in an ugly direction....I think it is extremely unbecoming of an administrator of this website and hope you take the proper course which is to retract the question.--MONGO 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be doing that. I am increasingly uneasy with the way you and your "side" (we shouldn't even have to think in "sides"!) have that article cordoned off. Rereading that talk archive from 2009 where good faith attempts to improve the article were met with stonewalling and threats made me feel physically sick. I made some suggestions at talk, with sources, towards improving the article and you made a comment about CTers. Fine, I am done there. Meantime the article does not in my opinion meet GA requirements and I am inquiring in a civil manner to the person who promoted it to give a rationale. I saw he mentioned IAR in the discussion, and it is my view that this is not an appropriate use of IAR, though I will wait and see what he says before deciding what to do next. I see you have mischaracterized my points at User talk:Joe Gazz84, which is no great surprise but confirms for me that we have nothing to say to each other. As you have requested of me in the past, I now ask you to stay off my talk page. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're an administrator on this website and your questioning of the GA promoter and by insinuation the fine work by Tom Harrison and A Quest for Knowledge who brought the article to GA level constitute personal attacks. You repeatedly question mine and others integrities and refer to me condescendingly as a "cohort" and "buddy"...your actions and words are unbecoming for an administrator of this website and you should immediately retract your comments or formally apologize for them.MONGO 11:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake MONGO, it's not a "personal attack" to question such a highly dubious promotion of an article to GA. Just about anyone outside the US looking at that article would be aghast at the resolute POV and suppression of core issues, some of which John has already outlined in a measured and moderate way. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans...they are also the same people who, percentage wise, believe in the conspiracy theories regarding the events. Might I suggest that this perception is partly due to an anti-American bias...as well as a media that is even less reliable for its facts than those found in the U.S. News oftentimes exists to reinforce preconceived notions...it sells. If sensationalizing the trivia that is associated with 9/11 and thereby departing from the focus and scope of the article is the manner in which non Americans think the article needs to go to be an FA, then that is a pity.MONGO 14:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee MONGO. As it stands this article doesn't even meet the GA criteria on prose quality alone. If you continue on this trajectory the likely result is that far from becoming an FA this article will lose its GA status in the not too distant future. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs streamlining, has to have the MOS issues fully addressed and some touchups before the prose itself can be hammered out. But the complexity of the subject issues and the major improvements made by others (not myself) leading up to the GA were such that it was worthy of GA status. You apear to be prepared to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point...likewise, if you and your ilk are going to persist in your egotistical dogmatism regarding what is and what isn't an article of merit, then there will be serious problems between us...ones I bet others will join in to finally put an end to your shenanigans.MONGO 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're heading towards a bad place MONGO, best back off before it's too late. Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, what place is that pray tell! If you're going to be a deliberate obstructionist regarding this article...and you've contributed nothing to it except your pretty much unhelpful critique. If indeed you had honorable intentions here regarding this article, you'd assist the writers by providing more than just to say the article is "crap"...MONGO 16:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Little hard of reading, are we? Go back to your ludicrous POV-pushing in your little walled garden, and take your ridiculous threats, racial stereotyping, posturing and bluffing with you. I am not afraid of you, but I have nothing to say to you and do not wish to read your ignorant garbage here. You are not welcome here, as I already pointed out. As you have requested of me in the past, I now ask you to stay off my talk page. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw this thread, I was going to say that I think the way you questioned the GA reviewer was unseemly and condescending. I still think you could have taken a more professional tone with him, but I'm increasingly inclined to agree with you and Malleus, and this comment sent what sympathy I had for MONGO out of the window. I think the article would be better off without people who hold opinions like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors obviously can't be forced to accept help they don't want for whatever reason, but the consequence in this case will very likely be that far from being promoted to FA this article will lose its GA listing. Who does that help exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. I went to that article with the good faith intention of trying to help resolve the issues, but I see from the response I received there (and here) from MONGO that nothing has changed since 2009. You should both read that archive if you haven't already; rereading that in conjunction with the current atmosphere at the talkpage convinced me that no improvement is currently possible there. It's probably better if I bow out of this meantime. I think I will leave it to others to challenge the GA status if they feel that is appropriate; it certainly doesn't merit FA or anything like it. I'd still be interested in opinions about how valid it is to allow a local consensus to override the NPOV section of Wikipedia:Good article criteria; Joe Gazz84 seems to have invoked WP:IAR which I don't think is appropriate. HJM, Malleus, what do you think? --John (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like Joe Gazz, and I hope he won't take offence at my saying so, but he might lack some of the experience and clout required to take a review like that on, and to say no to somebody like MONGO, who can be very subtly intimidating, and his "consensus is against this". But 'POV by omission', so to speak, is very difficult to assess when what is included seems to be a neutral description of events unless you know the subject extremely well. A GAR may be in order, but it's not really the fault of the original reviewer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously too controversial for an individual GAR, but I'm quite happy to initiate a community reassessment. I have no clout either, but Joe Gazz was clearly wrong to invoke IAR in the context of a GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine, let's do it. For all sorts of reasons I think leaving this sub-standard article labeled as "Good" would be highly unfortunate. --John (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here because I've been watching this with interest. I am American, I looked at the article when it was listed at FAC, and my immediate reaction was that it's very slanted. It doesn't read at all as a neutral account of the events; even the organization and the TOC, in my view, are presented in such a manner that neutrality is lost. I tried to read the page a few times and it's very overwritten - needs to go to summary style. In many ways it reminds me of Catholic Church that required a drastic cut, was delisted as GA and now is barely start class. It's unfortunate to see this happen so close to the 9/11 anniversary, but without serious pruning in the next few days I can't see how this page can be helped. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Truthkeeper. MONGO's outrageous nationalistic slurs (I've seen people blocked for less) should not go unchallenged. --John (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted you to know that I've been watching this unfold and am not terribly impressed with the talkpage comments, which is a shame. This article, above many others, should attract some our best editors and show a collaborative spirit to bring it at least to GA standards, but it seems to have fallen in quicksand. I commend you for trying. I don't want to be involved, but will support if it gets really ugly. Obviously you, Malleus, Karanacs and HJMitchell aren't the only ones who have concerns - you're the ones to say something is all. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't blame you for not wanting to get involved, the article is a hot potato (or potatoe according to that guy who claimed to have invented the internet). It's a shame that it's guarded so fiercely by a bunch of editors who have no idea what they're doing, but there's nothing can be done about that except to try and make it clear to them that they're wrong, and it is not a GA, or even close to being one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Interjecting humor) We should keep the imbecilic actions of Vice Presidents correctly aligned:
Perhaps the latter had the best idea.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the humor, that was appreciated. Have you seen this? It's hard to get a smile out of such a grim situation, but the Onion manages. I love these guys. --John (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You would think that the guy that got shot would like to have seen where Cheney at least had regret about that. :) I'll bet that Cheney doesn't get invited to go hunting much anymore.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. Truly, this article didn't get the way it is without years of ownership by some of our poorest editors. On the other hand, MONGO surprised me today with quite a good edit. I may need to step away from the article though as I find the atmosphere on the talk page highly toxic. See how it goes. Very clear it is not even close to being a GA at present. --John (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope that's equally clear to the brave soul who has to close this GAR. I'm glad it's not me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it's not me either. Recent article talk page experience reminds me of something Ronald Reagan said according to a recent biography of him I read. You know he was a life-guard before he went into films, then politics? He said that of all the people whose lives he saved, only about 10% thanked him. Most of them told him he was an asshole for making fools of them in front of their friends and partners. Do a favor, and make an enemy for life, eh? --John (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I find most difficult here is having to deal with people who are clearly insane. Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen Dr. Strangelove? --John (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did I ever tell you that I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? I'll start the GAR tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I knew that. Cheers, --John (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have many similar scars, which like a good Norman I will avenge. Maybe. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I didn't know you were a Norman. My background is likely mostly Gaelic, for whatever that's worth. To me it isn't about vengeance (even though MONGO has excelled himself in this episode in nastiness and missing the point), but about normalization; it is possible for a group of zealots to limit the scope of growth of a fiefdom of articles on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't simultaneously be possible to be granted GA or FA status, unless these auditing processes are even more broken than I had suspected. No offense whatsoever should attach to JoeGazz who seems to have been trying to reward some incremental improvements to the article and better stability. Ironically the latter probably only arose because the last few editors willing to challenge the slanted version were finally driven off the article. Never mistake dissent for disruption; all true progress comes from successfully-managed conflict. Instead the article has become a frozen conflict, mirroring perhaps the uncertain status of America as a superpower entrapped in crises of its own making. An article about 9/11 which only gives the US government view is like an article on the Pearl Harbor attacks which neglects to mention both the poor preparedness of the defenders and the fact that the attack catapulted America into a World War. --John (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have commented there. --John (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus your temperament is celtic through and through. I know I'm person non grata on wiki these days, but I was recently blocked for loosing my temper with one of these guys on a complealy unrelated matter. I might well be the first person to get blocked for arguing that painting developed between the 11th and 15th centuries. But the MO was I came across was same; fustrating stonewalling, specious argument, mind already made up and refusal to listen; "you might well be right but I dont care". Wiki has come a long way since these relics ruled the roost in, uh 2006/7. Ceoil (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. These are people who would argue with a straight face that only American editors should be able to edit the 9/11 article, and there is no point in debating with them. More fool them for putting it up for community assessment if they didn't really want community input. Luckily Wikipedia is a big place, and there are plenty of areas to edit away from nationalistic bullies. --John (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well, aside from that concidence, I think yourself and Malleus are making convincing arguments, but there is an inability to hear on the other side. In fairness to thoes guys they have put up with a lot of rubbish on thoes pages over the years, and I'm not excusing recent behaviour here but can see how it might lead to being reflexively defensive. MONGO is a one of the better FA writers when concentrating on geography, and understands the process whatever he says now, and has a lot of other fine articles under his belt. My guess is that if yourself, MF and MONGO could lay down arms and work together, ye'd have a fine page in weeks. All three of ye are very capable indeed, but lacking common ground. Big ask, but the only way forward without getting swampted in mire for years. Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words the wiki process of consensus is never going to work here, the page is too emotive and too prone to lobbying that !voting at RFC's is a joke. A break through will only ever be achived with the prinicpals talking informally, outside of process, and agreeing to give and take. I know Im preaching to the converted, but ye guys need to start formualing a way forward. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's inconceivable that I'd agree to work on anything with MONGO. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On this subject area, unfortunately, it is impossible to work with him. Without his behavior changing (highly unlikely), or a topic ban, this article will be forever stuck in 2005. I don't see any other way around it. --John (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think at the moment the plan is for the article to remain a toilet patrolled by nationalists; whether or not it gets to retain its GA blob, it won't ever be a FA because of the user conduct issues which we have been discussing. I am out of there. I've done a lot of work in special needs education, specifically in the area of social emotional and behavioral problems, and half the battle is knowing when to pass things on to someone else. That time is now for me. I will make one more statement at the GAR then I am done. Thanks for caring. --John (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your voice is needed but unfortunately talkpage filibustering is effective and you're not getting anywhere. It's sad because I strongly believe if we could get together a group of committed editors, put up an under construction tag, and just hack at for a few hours, it would be better than what Wikipedia is now showing to the world. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TK on this, with regert; my interest in recent discussions is peaked by the idea of a move forward. I think you and MF have a lot of credibility, but I suppose we are all experienced enough in wiki ways to relaise that the only way to negotiate with people waving their hands over their ears is months long arbcom. Shame, but I hear where you are coming from. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you both. It means a lot to me to have your support. One possibility some way down the line would be for us (by which I mean the non-partisan editors with an interest in improving the article) to put together a sandbox version then build a consensus to switch to a more neutral and GA-compliant version. The idea of reactivating the 2008 Arbcom case to have MONGO removed from play is also not a ridiculous one, Ceoil. I think just that step would maybe make enough of a difference. We can think about that. However, for now, I will work on my closing statement for the GAR which will be a stonker. Meantime, any other suggestions on how to decontaminate the toxic atmosphere surrounding this area of Wikipedia will continue to be gratefully received. --John (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi, if you want to please check out the AfDs for Peter Gruenwald and for Carmine Avellino. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

formats[edit]

If you stay away from certain articles, such as popular US culture, chances are that very few people will trouble you for aligning date formats. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I had no idea it was controversial at all, at all. --John (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't either, until I found Gimme on my back. I created an RfC which seems to have galvanised that person against what I was doing. I think Headbomb is merely guarding the principle that a consensus not to change the formats may exist, because one or two individuals were climbing the Reichstag. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash[edit]

Hello John

I noticed when going over the contributor record of the article I'm writing to you about, the Mull of Kintyre Chinook Crash, that you have held a longstanding interest in the article, and you have contributed many times to it over a number of years. Thus, I felt that after I had performed some considerable revision of it in the last 24 hours, you should be informed and given the chance to correct any oversights that my overhaul may have made; I do not have the same background following of the incident as you have, and thus you would be the better judge. It is not my intention to be disrespectful, thus I tread carefully on such a topic in which many people tragically lost their lives, and come to you in confidence, hoping that I have caused no offence with my actions. Kyteto (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyteto and thanks for the note. I took a look and your edits looked great. I'll try to dig out the page number for the Brookes reference that I added in the next 24 hours. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive user talk page[edit]

Hi, John, saw you were actively editing and was just wondering about something: I recently blanked this IP user talk page (for WP:BLPTALK concerns that seemed clear enough to me). Would some sort of deletion be appropriate (I'm thinking of "grossly insulting, degrading or offensive material"), or is blanking sufficient here? I'm aware that user talk pages are not usually deleted, but it seems that the IP in question hasn't edited anywhere else on the project. I have to say I'm shocked that this diatribe was visible on Wikipedia for more than two years. SuperMarioMan 23:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it, good catch. --John (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobey Baker[edit]

I notice you've taken an interest in Hobey Baker, as have I for some strange reason. It really does need some hefty work on its prose though I think if it's to get through FAC. I've done a bit, but it's not down to me to fix everything. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least it seems reasonably well-referenced; those type of MoS fixes and overlinking are relatively easy, as close as we have to low-hanging fruit in the present-day project. I remember when you could easily find interesting things or people who didn't have an article and write one. Those days are pretty much gone. --John (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't they are, or ever will be. But I do think that Wikipedia's emphasis has to switch from new to improving, hence my antipathy towards DYK as currently construed. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I tend to agree with you about DYK. I have never seen anything there to enthuse about. --John (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi John, thanks for your corrections here. On the "adopt patriot colours" to "adopted nationalist colours" I'm not so sure. Can we really use "nationalist" in this case? The author used the term I cited but your opinion on this would be helpful.--Domer48'fenian' 21:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, I would be open to using what the source says. I changed it because "patriot" has rather positive connotations and I thought (as someone well-versed in the linguistic complexities of this area) that "nationalist" would be a fairer modern-day gloss of what the writer meant. Let's raise it in talk and see what others think? --John (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just getting back to you on the above. Sean Cronin in his Irish Nationalism: A History of it's Roots and Ideology, on page 2 says that "Nationalism is a nineteenth-century term" citing The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: 1965) which says "gives the currency of the word as 1844 while the usage is associated with Ireland." I hope that addresses my concerns raised above. --Domer48'fenian' 18:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

If you get the chance take a look at the AfD for 2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short Stack[edit]

Hi John. Just reverted a speedy delete here, and wondered if you would consider semi-protecting the article (to keep the crazies away). All the best. memphisto 08:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that, thanks for the heads-up. --John (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A proper state execution is what's needed[edit]

I seem to be on trial everywhere,[27] but I console myself with the thought that I may one day encourage someone to open their mind to an alternative view, perhaps even one I don't even share myself. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A nuanced view of the 9/11 attacks is a lot to ask, to be fair; they've got that article looking just how they want it to look, then folks like us come along and tell them it isn't very good. Still, if they weren't looking for suggestions and criticism from the likes of us, why did they put it up for GA (and even FA)? If at the end of this we have an incrementally better article (and at the moment that is a big if), then all this work will have been worthwhile.
I wonder if you would like to separate out the criticisms you have of the article in more detail; I feel it's unhelpful for them to be allowed to continually bang on about coverage of "conspiracy theories" as if it was the only problem. GG made some good suggestions specifically about the air defense response. I had a hack in article talk a while ago as well, though my suggestions and sources were far from perfect. This was intended to set the ball rolling towards a discussion about all the other things that are wrong with the article, but folks there have become focused on the straw-poll to reverse the result of the utterly silly previous straw poll... I'd like to see more positive and constructive discussion there. Maybe it can wait until after the GAR is over, as having parallel discussions running simultaneously is difficult. I also recognize that this takes energy that any sane person would be reluctant to commit to just one article, albeit an important one, in the face of such hostility. Luckily, there is no deadline. Take care, --John (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is poor regardless of its coverage of conspiracy theories, and in my opinion was bullied through GAN. I wouldn't be prepared to touch it with a very long barge pole in the current climate. Malleus Fatuorum 07:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you. It's a horrible environment. Maybe it will change incrementally for the better as a result of the attention the review has brought. I hope so. --John (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil[edit]

I'm sorry for being a little overbearing, I've restored most of your edits over at Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. I hope the end result is what you were looking for; see my comments at the FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I beg a favor (or favour ...)...[edit]

Could you look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fairfax Harrison/archive1? You did excellent work with the Alfonso FAC, and I'd love to have more eyes on my non-bishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'll be happy to have a look. --John (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article, supported at FAC, and left feedback on your user talk. --John (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental Petroleum NPOV Concerns[edit]

Hi John, sorry to bother, but I noticed you made a minor revision to the Occidental Petroleum article a couple months ago, and I thought you might have some advice for me on proposed revisions to that article. There have been some recent edits to this article that I believe are not in full compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If you’re interested, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at my thoughts and proposed revisions discussed on the article’s talk page and provide any feedback you might have. Thanks for your time! CBuiltother (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. --John (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article and commented in talk. --John (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, thanks again for the feedback on this. I noticed that a revision you made as well as another I made a few days ago were undone by Cowboy128, who also went on to comment on the article’s talk page. In the most recent comment, Cowboy128 discussed the way that I have handled myself as it pertains to conflict of interest, claiming that I have not been complying with Wikipedia’s policies and should cease all conversations related to that article. While I believe this user acts in good faith, I have tried to remain in compliance with WP:NPOV and always discussed proposed edits on the talk page before implementing them in order to avoid concerns about WP:COI. I have also made an effort to inform others of my conflict of interest upfront, as recommended in WP:COI. In short, I was wondering if you had any advice on how best to address the concerns voiced by Cowboy128. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must be rather similar ...[edit]

... because like me, you can't read an article without editing it. :lol: But seriously, many thanks for your improvements to the Manchester bombing article. That was a hard one to keep on track. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are extremely welcome. Between me and you I still haven't fully got over the thrill I got in 2005 when I first saw the little "edit this page" link on quite a decent-looking online encyclopedia article. It also beats cleaning the bathroom which is what I am taking a break from. I think I had already previously edited the Mcr bombing article, but now that I look at it again, it might well provide an exemplar for the eventual improvement of the 9/11 article, should that ever become possible. Cheers! --John (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 9/11 incident obviously got more press coverage, and so there are inevitably going to be a lot of spin-off articles going into more details of the major sections, but the article right now clearly isn't an encyclopedic summary of the events of that day. That it was ever passed as a GA bewilders me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody should be allowed to invoke WP:IAR in an area like this. I will keep a much closer eye on this in the future; it isn't fair to anybody to tell them a crap article is "good". The people who wrote the current article, for all its faults, were well-intentioned and this is a slap in the face to them and does the project no favors at all. WP:IAR? exists for a reason. --John (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11[edit]

Hi John. I saw on the 9/11 talk page that you were thinking of creating a sandbox with a revamped version of what's currently on the 9/11 page. We had to do that with the article Catholic Church last year when the talk page was just toxic towards changes. We put together a really big RfC of the two versions with an uninvolved admin moderating. The slimmed-down version got consensus. It still had lots of problems, but it eliminated some in the previous version so it was an improvement. If you will start the process on the 9/11 article and do the first pass-through, I'll volunteer to help polish (read trim and reword ruthlessly) to get to a point that it can be presented for an RfC. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a really great suggestion. As I said in the talk comment I would need to believe that we would somehow be able to bypass the defensiveness there. You are somebody I really respect and if you think it is a worthwhile course of action I will go ahead and do it. I make no guarantee of course as to timescale; I often find anyway that it helps not to be in a rush for these things. Does that sound ok? --John (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I've been following the whole thing (but not getting involved because quite honestly I'm busy enough and don't need another fight on my hands) but as an American, I think the whole tenor of the talk page there is something of a disgrace, and I resent the implication that if editors don't follow the "party line" they are conspiracy theorists... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
E, I think that's one of the other things that is totally missing from the article - the rise of patriotism that did not allow for any dissent from the party line, which has carried over to the talk page. I do think Tom Harrison is genuinely interested in improving the article rather than stonewalling (I don't know some of the others well enough to see where they fall). BUT, years ago when he tried to be an independent admin over Catholic Church I wasn't entirely convinced he had a great understanding of the NPOV policy. Haven't seen any of his work except this article since then. I annoyed him back then and I'm sure I'll be considered annoying now. My NPOV interpretation is pretty strict, but all I can really do is talk because I don't have the time to read the sources and really dig in. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC) PS John, thank you for calling me on "however abuse" ;) It's one of my biggest prose weaknesses, I'm afraid. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are essentially good people who have gotten into a highly defensive mindset regarding "their" article. There but for the grace of God go I. Their mistake was, if they wanted to keep the article like that forever, to take the article to community assessment. I still hope something good can come out of it and I intend to follow through with what I promised and Karanacs suggested, even if it takes some time. I will only do this if I am convinced there is willingness to change there; it is too exhausting to battle with people who sling accusations around. As a permanent resident and taxpayer of the US who currently has a blood relative fighting in Afghanistan, I have no apologies to make to any American about "patriotism", although I was brought up to believe that it was the last refuge of a scoundrel. I really appreciate the support and positive energy (see, you can tell I live in California) and I am more optimistic than I have been for years about the prospect of improving this article thanks to the RFC, the GAR and K's recent suggestions at article talk. K, sorry for the edit summary but it is a bugbear of mine. Thanks, both. --John (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And User:NuclearWarfare, an admin I greatly respect, has offered to moderate. For me, I will try to stay clear of further drahmaz that may arise there, await the closure of the GAR, and wait for say a week to go by without someone who is trying to improve the article being dragged to AN/I or Arbcom enforcement, and then get going on a sandbox version. Karanacs, Ealdgyth, Malleus, I am counting you in. Meantime there is a lot of other stuff I can be getting on with. --John (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you'll have to count me out, I ain't touching it after the events of the last week or so. Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't blame you. I have worked with some crazy people in the past, but you have to pay me a lot for that. I am not sure whether I am into doing it for free. That's why I need to wait and see what happens; if the DoW are going to keep up this harassment campaign as they seem to be doing, I won't be interested either. --John (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me??? I don't begin to be well read enough to deal with that, and honestly, it's not a subject of interest to me. I've got one article at FAC, one more ready to be copyedited, one more in the final research push, and one about to begin the final research push. Plus, of course, minor little articles like Norman conquest of England and Thomas Becket to read for.... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, it'll either just be me and Karanacs or we will leave it to the existing group to see what they can do. It's been crap for a long time so another week won't matter... --John (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see anything changing there, just my nemesis getting more and more wound up. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tell my kids, ignore, challenge, refer and I try to follow this myself. Toa has made a fool of himself and it's fine to just ignore him and let him get over it for now. If you continue to be harassed I would ask an uninvolved admin to talk to him, or I can find someone if you'd rather. AN/I is a dramafest but that is another possibility. --John (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching but not commenting; have been thinking about the restructure and how best to go about doing that, because it's the most important at this point. I agree with John - Toa doesn't know it, but is in over his head, and clearly has a very strong POV. Let it go, and ignore. The real work, restructuring and rewriting, is more important, and I'm thinking BRD might apply here. I've been incredibly crunched time-wise these days, but am tempted to just dive in and bodly begin moving around sections to see how it looks. And then be reverted and then discuss. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's part of the problem ... most of us have other projects which demand most of our time, and thus the folks with strong POVs tend to dominate. NOrmally, this is a good thing for our own projects, but it does tend to make taking on new projects difficult (I've sworn to myself to get Thomas Becket to at least GA within the year.. that will be fun. I'd also like to get Norman Conquest up to snuff...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question for you and your TPS[edit]

How many really active editors (not the more than five edits a month crap) do you think Wikipedia has right now? I think it's way below 10,000 and dropping. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real idea, honestly. It's probably less than it was once, but on the other hand, I suspect many of those still here are a lot more productive in terms of actual encyclopedic content. We've lost a couple of notorious POV warriors in the last year, and a bunch of others have "reformed"... so while things may not be quite as growth oriented as in the past, I do think that what does get done is much more useful. Look at what Johnbod's doing with art, or Hnhc's (I can't recall his exact username right this second) with the English kings, or the various biology and zoology articles that are getting fleshed out... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some bright spots, I agree. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the section above shows that some sections haven't left behind the old days either... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's something I think social psychologists call decision fatigue, something that supermarkets take advantage of by placing cheap sweets at the checkout. After half a day spent arguing about whether it should be "seven or eight-year-old" or "seven- or eight-year-old" I think any rational person has to question whether this project is for real or is just a tosser's paradise. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well ... check this out ... that's what I get for actually you know, reading sources and stuff... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched that discussion with growing astonishment. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, spare me sheer minutes of research and tell me what you are talking about please. --John (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows from a conversation on the talk page of Hubert Walter that I eventually decided to just drop since it was obvious that nothing I offered as a compromise was going to resolve it ... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can never take seriously any argument on an encyclopedia which misuses the apostrophe to form a plural, it's a particular foible of mine. Other than that I don't think I have any opinion on the subject at the moment. If, however, you would like me to take a look I will be happy to read further on it. --John (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, did I misuse an apostrophe? I'm sure Malleus will tell you that's the least of my sins against grammar and spelling... nah, we'll see where it goes, but you'll know I'm stressed when I vent on Malleus' page... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it was your opponent in the argument who did that. I will read it in the morning when I have more time. If you are stressed, you are always welcome to vent here too. I don't have any magic answers, but I have been here a while and know how it goes. --John (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to amuse with Sandbox3. Work-in-progress, don't you know? Identical, I think, except maybe for Byrhthelm, with the list on the wall in the cathedral. The purpose, mainly, is to put the "footnotes" of history at the bottom of the page where they belong. After 1558, don't care so much. Cheers! --Kenatipo speak! 05:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is fine to work on a draft in your userspace, I've sometimes done that myself. But don't you think it would be better to help figure this dispute out by using reliable sources in article talk? --John (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed to sources that show what reliable recent historians do - they include the electees who didn't receive a pallium in the list in chronological order with notations that they were elected but did not get consecration or a pallium. That's both the Handbook of British Chronology and the Fasti. The Fasti is even available online! Which is, I point out, what the original list and what the compromise I offered on HW's page was. Now, yes, it doesn't agree with the CoE's list nor with the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia's list - but we try to reflect scholarly peer-reviewed works when possible, while also reflecting other viewpoints. Ealdgyth - Talk 08:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is what we go with, regardless of opinions. I also commented in article talk. Kenatipo, would you like me to delete the draft you made? It doesn't seem productive in light of what Ealdgyth just said to keep it around. Let me know, --John (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that it's not just myself that's worked on that list (or worked over the various ABC articles) .. there are two other regular editors on the subject of the English bishops who both helped with the recent revamp of the ABC list (truth to tell, they did all the fancy formatting and stuff to make the list spiffy) .. so it isn't just me who is imposing this structure. For that matter, Deacon of P is semi-active in this area and has no issues with the presentation either, and if there is one thing DoP isn't shy about, it's letting other editors know when something isn't jibbing with the historical consensus. Ealdgyth - Talk 08:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an active project you can take this to? Pardon my ignorance. While my first reaction is to agree with you it may also be that Kenatipo has something valid to say, but it might be better to take this to a wider audience. Again, pardon my ignorance of this historical area. It was a fascinating article; I couldn't resist taking a hack at it though! --John (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an "active" project. There are some editors in the area, and if people have concerns, the list article talk page would eventually get some input. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, there are about 2,500 active editors who average above +500 edits/month and they are repsonisble for a hugely disproporinate amount of content. There is a myth that ips wrote the ency, I dont believe it, its hhokum dreamed up as a defence by Kelly Martin as a stab against content people (at the time against Geogre and Giano). If you click earliest edit on the history of any non crap article, chances are you'll recoginise the name of the first poster. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think everybody should just relax regarding the ABC list. I have no intention of using Sandbox3 to supplant the existing article. At the moment I'm just information-gathering and learning how to work with tables. --Kenatipo speak! 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers of the Disappeared[edit]

Hi John, I was wondering if you had found any further issues which gave you cause for concern at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mothers of the Disappeared/archive3. If there is anything that needs addressing, please let me know! Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there as I said I would, and thanks for reminding me. --John (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Terrorism - Welcome Back![edit]

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney[edit]

There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 23:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I commented there. --John (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Osborn[edit]

John, you know what is funny - I have been using wp since 2001. I have met J.W. at a few .com parties, and the only time I have ever felt strong enough about a subject to make an edit on wp was this item. Shane Osborn is a traitor. Before 1990 he would have been shot on the spot for landing his plane on enemy territory. I really do not care too much about the issue but my 88 year old grandfather, is very adamant that Shane Osborn is a traitor and the world needs to understand that. I know you are a very valuable wiki asset, but you need to realize there is much more to this story than anyone knows. I have contributed much to wp and before you remove my edits (again) I hope we can discuss this subject further. If you need to know more you should read the article on Chuck Yeager. Thank you, Ira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irassassin (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but we operate according to reliable sources. Unless your grandfather is a reliable source we cannot use this, however strongly he or you feel about the subject. --John (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 16:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was a lot of fun making them. --John (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of them? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
High five John, impressive...Modernist (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both; Malleus, of course some have been more fun than others, but some of the ones I made in working with you on the Thatcher article were the most fun of all. --John (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing resumed by User:Willrocks10[edit]

Just to let you know that this user has again made several disruptive edits to Pink Floyd related articles, edits that have been reverted before by various editors. I have posted a message on his "cleaned up" talk page. Regards. 81.83.136.77 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Jared Leto DRN thread[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Jared Leto". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there, thank you. --John (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd[edit]

Hi,I would like to just say on my edit on the Division Bell Tour I changed England To UK because the table had sovereign states and England is not a Sovereign state. I am not trying to be a Vandal, I am trying to be a useful editor, I have mad 11 articles which I hope they are all to a wiki standard. Also I would like to say this user: 81.83.136.77 and this one 81.83.139.130 are doing very similar things like reverting edits by a lot of people, I am wondering if this is the same person using two different IP addresses.

Thanks,

Willrocks10 (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Woking High I put Woking, Surrey, England, UK is this ok?

Thanks

Willrocks10 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tags[edit]

Hi John,

Any chance you could help me with something please? I've had a couple of messages added to my talk page by a bot saying I've made an error with a couple of images I uploaded earlier today. Specifically I haven't added a copyright tag. Could you advise please how I add the tag to the pages in question please?

Any help is much appreciated. Socheid (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:File copyright tags. You need to get the photographer to state in writing that he or she has no objection to the pictures being reused by others, even on a commercial basis. --John (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vukovar FAC review[edit]

You commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2 that you thought the article was too long. I've now reduced it substantially in size and it is now shorter than many other featured articles. Could you please take another look and indicate whether this resolves your concerns? Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a look with a view to supporting. Nice work! --John (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now commented at FAC. It's looking almost good enough now I think. --John (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 backlog elimination drive report
GOCE September 2011 Backlog elimination drive progress graphs

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We would like to thank all who participated in this drive. Here is the end-of-drive report.

Participation

There were 58 editors who signed-up for this drive, of which 42 participated. This is a slight increase from the July 2011 drive participation, where 39 out of 50 people that signed up participated. Thank you to everyone!

Progress report

During the drive, we reduced the backlog by 146 articles, or by about 4%. Overall we did well, especially considering the exceptionally large number of articles that were tagged during September. Thus far we have reduced the copy edit backlog by 4854 articles, or by about 58%. If we keep up our current rate of copy editing, the backlog should be reduced by 65–70% by the end of this year. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. Barnstars will be handed out this week.

Once again, thank you for participating in the Guild's September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Our next drive will be in November, and we hope to see you there!

Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD closing conventions[edit]

Hi John, in re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Kuklinski, note that usually AfDs are closed:

  1. by substituting the {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} templates; and
  2. with the {{afd top}} template above the header.

I fixed your close of this one. To assist with AfD closing (and even implementing the decision on the article, such as deleting it if the result is "delete" and removing the AfD template if the result is "keep"), I use a very handy script written by Mr.Z-man here: User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js. I'd recommend you install it in your monobook.js (or vector.js), whichever skin you use. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up after me. --John (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: barnstar[edit]

Thank you, but the credit should mainly go to Prioryman :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have given him two then? I give you both full credit for the work you did, and for putting up with my edits and in some cases correcting mistakes I made. Working with others is the hardest thing we do here and it is worth complimenting those who do it well. Nice working with you and see you around. --John (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NIF changes[edit]

The IP user that made recent changes to the NIF article had a whole series of them. Did you rollback all of these, or just a particular edit? I can't really tell in the DIFF. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely I notice lots of missing material. I suggest a rollback to Invisibleman's version. Thoughts? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. --John (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now for the stupid question: any idea how to do that? I seem to recall it's very easy, but that was many moons ago. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this, I will figure it out when I can. --John (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look; it isn't that simple as some improvements were made since IM's edit. I will have a look at the formatting issue you mentioned. --John (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help please[edit]

Hi John. I wonder if you could give me some advice about how to proceed with the problem I'm having here and (just below it) here (although the problems with the user in question are far more wide-spread—as their talk page indicates)? I have a thick skin and couldn't care about the name calling, but I'm very worried about the result on WP articles as the editor in question continues disregarding policy and guidelines. I know what I'd like to do, but I greatly respect your opinion and actions as an admin, and I would like to find out how you suggest I should handle the situation. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  06:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took an initial look and formed an initial opinion. I will take action in the next hour that will resolve this matter. It's important that you withdraw now and let me deal with it. Thank you for asking me to intervene, I think that was the right thing to do. --John (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you. Could I just say that I don't think this is so urgent that you have to rush into anything. While I don't believe that the user in question is acting in the best interests of WP, I do believe that the user is trying to act in the best interests of WP. In my experience, it's necessary to have a working knowledge of the policies and guidelines at WP (especially copyright issues)—and that's all that I would like to see happen here. I respect people who try to add content, and I'd be unhappy if the user in question was to be discouraged from adding content. I've tried to suggest actions to improve the user's editing, but to no avail. I'm really interested in what can be done to gently coax a change in attitude in this case—to be more in line with what is expected from editors. GFHandel ♬  07:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned the user. Please let me deal with it from now on, and thanks again. --John (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will. GFHandel ♬  07:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Take care, --John (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vukovar[edit]

You've got "oppose" bolded twice and "support" bolded once. The delegates generally prefer that you bold your current position, as the first word in one of your comments. A lot of people strike "oppose" after they support, but I think it's fine to just de-bold it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have amended my comments. --John (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, and I'm going to move the bolded "support" to the front of the comment if that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. --John (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you[edit]

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for further help on Oxy article[edit]

Hi John, I’ve been working with another editor, Ocaasi, and Cowboy128 on the disputed material in the Occidental Petroleum article, but things seemed to have stalled over the last several days as there has been no additional feedback. I was hoping you might briefly weigh in, as you did before, on the discussion we’re having on the article’s talk page and, if you consider it appropriate, implement any revisions you think would be beneficial. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a further look. --John (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I don’t mean to rush things on the revisions to the Occidental Petroleum article, but I do believe it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to address some of the NPOV concerns we discussed earlier. I realize you are probably busy with other projects, but was hoping you might suggest another editor or page I could go to for further help, or, if you’re willing, provide some additional feedback. Just to let you know, I have posted a similar message on Ocaasi’s talk page, who I have also been working with on these revisions. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I haven't forgotten. I took a preliminary look and will weigh in there some time later today. --John (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commented. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for taking another look at this, John. CBuiltother (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. --John (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey John, as you may have seen, I went ahead and implemented the revision we discussed earlier and posted on the talk page concerning the revision. I also added a section to the Ray Irani article’s talk page discussing the content I removed from the Occidental Petroleum article and welcoming other editors to provide feedback or changes to the relevant material, which I placed in a drop box, in case they were interested in adding anything more. However, the revision to the Occidental Petroleum article was undone again and I was wondering if you had any advice on how to resolve this recurring issue. Thanks again! CBuiltother (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted this at WP:BLPN. Let's see what other editors think. --John (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John, looks like your post on the WP:BLPN page has generated some feedback from other editors. CBuiltother (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of France national......[edit]

I'm not in to giving our barn-stars. Don't really find them appealing, but excellent work improving the History of the France national football team article. — JSRant Away 04:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate[edit]

The article you redirected has not been merged, but plainly deleted, contrary to the proposition. I propose that it be temporarily restored, so that it may be correctly merged by a chemically knowledgable user(s). Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, please. --John (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and there was little enough to merge, part of the reason merging makes sense. --John (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you merged copper(II) sulfate hydrate or did you just delete it? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, I redirected the article to the main one. There is no reason to have a standalone article on a hydrate. If there is any referenced material which is not on the main article it can be added there. The last time I did this there wasn't. --John (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a referenced setion on producing the amorphous monohydrate in good purity which, was not given in the target article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do as you asked but the reference didn't seem to relate to the material it was being used to reference. Can you check please? --John (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did when I first found the reference. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? --John (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go into the reference if you don't believe me. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is behind a paywall so I cannot. If you give me your word that this is what it says then I believe you. There is nothing in the abstract about copper sulphate, and that's all I can read. --John (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is briefly discussed in the introduction, as an example of a related technique. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am sorry to seem so suspicious, I do believe you. Hey, are you a South African? --John (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a South African New Zealander. My user page? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. From where? I had some very happy times in SA in the 1980s, mostly in Durban. --John (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Town district, between 1989-2001. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

John, The Entombment (Bouts) will be going to FAC in a few days; I would appreciate a look at the prose from you. You know how it is with articles you are close to; wood from threes. But I understand if you are preoccupied. Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be very happy to take a look. --John (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. For example I seem unable to spell the word trees. Here is a nice tune.[28]. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. First impression is that it looks nice and it will be hard to improve, but that's good, right? I love JCC, the Bard of Salford. Saw him support The Fall in about 2005, he was brilliant, actually better than the main act that night. --John (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw him once, in Cork in about 93, and I laughed so hard I thought I was in for a heart attack. He has huge charisma, for a skinny fecker, amazing that he was able to pull Nico. Yeah the mightly Fall, seen them a bunch of times, always the same, always diffrent. This Nation's Saving Grace is probabaly my favourite and most listened to album, though Hex Enduction Hour is a close second; amazing how he picked up on Can and Kraftwerk so early. Mark E Smith is a man I could sit down with and have a pint with. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think Extricate is my favourite album. Smith is a moody bugger; the night we saw him he was in a bad mood and it affected the performance. A bit like the late great John Martyn, a genius but susceptible to showing symptoms of humanity in his demeanour form time to time. --John (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at it and it really looks good. I will swing by again. --John (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a lot of the wiki article on Nick Drake, and frankly aside from family, Martyn comes out of it best. I think he was the most perceptive and caring and plane speaking of Drake's music associates. But the drink got him, and he was very cantankerous later on. Solid Air is still breathtaking. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw him three times, and twice he was brilliant, but in the early 1990s at a small venue in the Edinburgh Fringe he was really pissed off and let it show. The several pints of 80/- and spliffs he imbibed during the show didn't seem to lift his mood any. Great artists are often temperamental. I just listened to Solid Air and One World again the other week and they stand up very well still. London Conversation is also worth a listen from his early stuff. --John (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Few would argue that Lou Reed is a nice guy worth spending 5 minutes with, and Van Morrisson is the same. I kind of get Mark E Smith though, hes so funny in his expression I can see where he is coming from, and yeah Extricate is a fine, dazzling album. Have you heard these guys, very uneven cannon there (I like about 15 out every 19 albums); the guy is a mad 4 track inventor par none, and when good he's exceptional. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that was nice. I had heard of them but not heard their music before. Which albums would you recommend? Do you like science fiction? Bob Shaw is one of my favourite writers and I always meant to develop that article a little further but never got around to it. I am rereading his Orbitsville trilogy just now, nearly finished the first book. --John (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend Guided by Voices, start with Alien Lanes and then Bee Thousand. is pehalps their peak, but there is lots great wierdnenss after than. RE sci-fi, no, but I'm re-engaging with fantasy after the game of thrones series. Feel free to fling link at me at will, will always listen, and take care. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try these two and let you know how I get on. --John (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AV-8B FAC[edit]

Is there anyway that you will change your stance if Sandy's points are addressed? I mean, I'd hate to see articles go down if there are minor mistakes that seem to outweigh the good points, but that's just my view. If you see more serious, please point them out so others can address them, otherwise, I think the article is nearly polished. Thanks! Sp33dyphil © • © 02:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. I will happily change my stance if the points I am opposing on are addressed. Incidentally, it won't help if you ridicule good-faith concerns that others have. --John (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problems that Sandy raised seem to be minor points to me, and I'd hate to see an oppose because of that. However, I have a feeling that you see more problems in the article, am I right? Cheers --Sp33dyphil © • © 04:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't speak for Sandy, but I agree with her on the prose quality. It can be a lot of work to iron out issues like this. I took a quick look and confirmed there are problems with the prose. Hence I oppose for now until the issues can be addressed. I will continue to think about how best to address this. --John (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. FWIW, I've only spotted one of her comments of being related to grammar, with the rest being about some jargons. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose describes both the words chosen and how they are put together. --John (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There are 5 3 days left until the FAC deadline, so please be prompt and concise! If you think the problems are minor, please make the changes yourself and I'll go over it, similar to what Dank does. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning (textiles)[edit]

I sent this message to Mosiac which points out what is happpening

I have reverted the Americanisation of the text in this article which you made in good faith. I believe MOS:RETAIN is the reference. The article is consistent in its use of BR:ENG since I did a fairly complex switch on 1st October. In essense it becamea new article.If you read the talk page you will see what happened. There is a problem in many Textile and industrial articles, where a page was beautifully written 5 years ago from a craft POV. The text is good but impossible to integrate into a page that deals with economics or industrial processes. It is blocking the cleanup of the structure of related articles. To get round this- the craft page needs to be re-named, and a meta-page written for the original title. Spinning (textiles) -> Hand spinning taking all the text. A new page was started on Spinning (textiles) referenced mainly from Collier. Yes a lot more work needs to be done here- but my other major text is published in Bangalore! There is no-one working in the industrial textile field at the moment that uses US spelling- so what is procedure. I see the course of action I took as the right one in this circumstance. This is important because I need to also address the Weaving article when I have referenced up some text for the replacement.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You imply that there are many thing wrong with the holding stub, which I can only agree- in isn't an FA, would you like to add some suggestions on the talk page --ClemRutter (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tried to clean up the most egregious faults. --John (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--ClemRutter (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. --John (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello John/Archive 2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Manchester United F.C.[edit]

It would be good to head off at the pass the inevitable singular/plural discussion before the equally inevitable melt down on the 30 October TFA. Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Since editing here I have come to see the singular use for joint nouns as an Americanism so it looks kind of jarring on a UK subject. No big deal I suppose. --John (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread[edit]

...where someone has mentioned you in an underlying attack page (subject of thread). Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; it looks like this one came out in the wash without my intervention. --John (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for all your assistance with Battle of Vukovar, which has benefitted enormously from your expertise in copyediting! Prioryman (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I enjoyed working with you and would be happy to do so again. --John (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Hope to see you back when the batteries are charged. See things have been trying for you lately, but think you're a 'good un', and we're better off with you than without. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the support. --John (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE drive newsletter[edit]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying status[edit]

After my part in accidentally fomenting drama which seems to have resulted in a block, an unblock, an AN/I thread, an RFAR, and controversy across several talk pages, so far, with this innocently-intended query. I do hope all those who need to learn from this episode have duly done so. This kind of drama more than individual rudeness or passion is what drives people away from contributing, and I speak for myself here. I am still fed up about what happened, and will take a day or two still to think about it all, before I get back into editing. --John (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I am back now, with the conviction that something must be done. More to follow. --John (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to tell you as soon as I saw you return that I'm happy to see you back and also to apologize for referring to you as a gnome. That was written in a moment of tiredness when I checked in and saw all the mess and wasn't thinking well. Malleus is right, you're much more. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's nice of you to say. --John (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 31 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potted[edit]

This months MOJO has a very good overview of the Clash ablums, its a two page thing but very insiteful. "Combat rock" is in third place, after "The Clash" and "Sandinista!". Hmm. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In my opinion it would be
  1. London Calling
  2. Combat Rock
  3. Sandinista!
  4. Give Em Enough Rope
  5. The Clash
  6. Cut the Crap
--John (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd swap one and two, but put Another Music in a Different Kitchen above all of em. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you saying you liked the Buzzcocks. So do I. But for me, comparing them with the Clash is like comparing Chandler with Steinbeck, or ice cream with cheese. Both can be brilliant, but they are very different and suited to different moods. Pete Shelley's first solo album (what should have been the Buzzers next album after A Different Kind of Tension) is under-rated, as are their revival albums.
  1. A Different Kind of Tension
  2. Love Bites
  3. Homosapien
  4. Another Music in a Different Kitchen
  5. Singles Going Steady (for all the great non-album tracks)
  6. Trade Test Transmissions
Off Another Music, what's your favourite song? Mine is "Autonomy", I was always a sucker for the Diggle ones. Also "Why She's a Girl from the Chainstore", a late single from the original period.
And then there's Magazine, who were also amazing. John McGeoch is another article in need of loving care; I met him when he was with Siouxsie and the Banshees and he was a lovely and very unpretentious guy. --John (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fast cars. I was 14 when I discovered Punk, so its speed and electricity was the hook. I've played a lot of drums so "Moving Away from the Pulsebeat" (which ended the album in my day, look at the track listing on the wiki article) was very formative. Yes Magazine, I like that Shot by Both Sides is a Shelly riff; Lipstick being such a great glam/punk mash up. Uh, what's you position on Undertones? The reformed album with Paul Muldoon (who by the way is these days the Irish John Peel and a huge Fall fan) is a little appreciated cracker. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, my at the moment top five 81-83 post punk tunes 1 2 3 4 5. Your turn. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Fast Cars" is brilliant; it was the first time I ever heard of Ralph Nader. I played in a band that covered this song. Still thinking about the second part of your question. It indirectly stimulated a series of conversations about Public Image; looking back on it, they were an amazing band, and arguably much more innovative than the Sex Pistols. --John (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Undertones; although I love what they did and they were very dear to a hero of mine, I never liked Sharkey's voice and actually much preferred That Petrol Emotion. Have you heard Nouvelle Vague's 2010 best of? If not I think you might like it. --John (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh way way more innovative, and while the Clash introduced Reggae to white punks, PiL brough Dub. Ja is one of my favourite bass players, though I can't be doing with his stuff from the last 10 years or so, too self important. Still wainting for the five tunes, though I realise you could post 5 today, and five different ones tomorrow. If you were to ask me now, the list would prob start with [29], although its a few years older than 82-83. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nouvelle Vague played in Cork about a year ago; the only thing I liked was the cover of the Sister's Marian, which was interesting. I heard the albums before, and allways found it coffey-table-ish, but maybe I'm too precious, dunno. I will say this, and you can take it how you like; there was a lot of v hot chicks at that gig. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only just discovered them and have been enjoying their coffee table interpretations of some of these angst anthems; maybe I have become to some degree a coffee table kind of a guy in my middle age. In terms of their artistic approach I see a similar irony to Stereolab. Know them? I will get to your five questions in time, and I certainly love Robert Wyatt and PiL. It will be really difficult to come up with a different list to yours, but I will try. --John (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dont feel under pressure, I already have a good impression of your taste, which in ways is is very similar but very different at the same time to mine; it would be only a snapshot after all. These things are shifting sands, I know that. Oh and by the way, I see Vukovar was on the main page yesterday. No small due due to you. Congrats. Ceoil (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very kind of you. --John (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first three Sterolab EPs and two album were great, saw them a bunch of times in 91/92, but after that they descended into self parody, easy listening. Too Pure was a great label, one of the best, Pram[30], Th' Faith Healers, Polly Harvey. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first two are just great, classic tunes, the last three I dont know, but looing forward to hearing. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Smith[edit]

I clicked on a link to Drake Smith and got this: A page with this title has previously been deleted...

  • 09:16, 11 September 2006 John (talk | contribs) deleted "Drake Smith" ‎ (content was: '...Drake Smith (born Drake Russell Smith, March 19, 1985, in Nashville, Tennessee) is really cool. He now lives in [[Mt. Juliet, Tennessee...')

I can't find the actual entry in your contrib list. It appears Smith deserves an entry but this was perhaps deleted because it was badly written, judging by the sentence above, instead of improved? I tried to find a discussion in articles for deletion but could not. Trudyjh (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no AfD as this was a speedy deletion, because the article was so short that it said nothing about the subject or why he deserved an article in Wikipedia. --John (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting on my talk page[edit]

Hi John,

Apols for troubling you. Could you help with something please if you get a moment?

The situation is this. There's someone made a posting on my talk page. That's fair enough to which I have responded on his page. The other person has just made a further posting on my page requesting that I don't make joke edits on his talk page. It looks like he thinks I am taking the micky which couldn't be further from the truth. If you could take a look at the posting I made and help he person understand I have better things to do than post jokes on his talk page that would be appreciated.

Any help much appreciated. Socheid (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, sorry to write on your talk page, but I'm fine to say a sorry again, because I have already made a sorry on his Talkpage. Just message me if you have any concern about the language I have used. --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me 18:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I was away for a couple of days. I will take a look. --John (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked into this it seems to have been resolved without my intervention. Please let me know if any further input is needed, and sorry I wasn't around when you messaged me. --John (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

Hi. Back in June it was proposed by User:Larry V that Fermanagh Orangeism be merged with Orange Order. According to a banner on their User Page, the nominator is now on an extended break. Discussion re the proposal was at Talk:Fermanagh Orangeism, with some additional commentary at Talk:Orange Order#Fermanagh Orangeism. The creator of the article, User talk:Ni fact finder who is new to Wikipedia, has asked me for assistance at their TP on a number of occasions, so I think it proper to recuse myself from the process as such. They are anxious for a decision asap. Could I ask you to help move things on, perhaps with a view to closing, or approach another admin to do so who would be seen as neutral to all concerned. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A certain urgency beginning to develop. The sooner this is addressed, the less drama. RashersTierney (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was away for a couple of days. I will have a look. --John (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have closed the discussion as merge. I am sorry I was away when you asked me for help. I will take care of merging when I can. --John (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Battle of Vukovar[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Vukovar know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 18, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Destroyed Serbian tank at Vukovar

The Battle of Vukovar was an 87-day siege of the Croatian town of Vukovar by the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and paramilitaries from Serbia, between August–November 1991. In 1990, Croatian Serb separatists launched an armed uprising, supported by Serbian President Slobodan Milošević, and seized control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia. The JNA intervened in favour of the Croatian Serbs and launched an offensive in August 1991 against Croatian government-held territory. Vukovar was defended by around 1,800 lightly armed Croatian soldiers and civilian volunteers, against 36,000 JNA soldiers and Serbian paramilitaries equipped with heavy armour and artillery. When the town fell on 18 November 1991 after prolonged fighting, hundreds were massacred by Serb forces and the town's non-Serb population was expelled. Vukovar was peacefully reintegrated into Croatia in 1998 after the end of the Croatian War of Independence and has since been rebuilt, but deep ethnic divisions remain. Several Serb military and political officials, including Milošević, were later indicted and in some cases jailed for war crimes committed during and after the battle. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Help![edit]

Well, that's about it :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk. Looking into it. --John (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mentioned[edit]

Hi - I mentioned you at ANI in relation to relaxing Sarah's topic ban. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I wonder if the time is now ripe for relaxing this aspect of Sarah's editing restriction? --John (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She has been very well behaved from what I can see. If you think better to let the naming issue resolve itself first then I could understand. I think moving forward she wouldn't create additional issues. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Ely, Cambridgeshire[edit]

John. I am notifying you of this peer review as you have recently edited the article.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

--Senra (Talk) 01:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I took a quick look. Nice article. --John (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Hope you are having a wonderful Friday :-) Are you still accepting copy-editing requests? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy to help. What can I do for you? --John (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding :-) I'm trying to get Selena Live! to FA status and since my prose is very weak I was wondering if you could copy-edit it to meet the criteria? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely take a look in the next few days. --John (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Have a great weekend. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten about this, but it looks like taking longer than I had planned. Sorry about the delay. --John (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011[edit]


Margaret Thatcher[edit]

With all the talk about about "vital" articles and the importance of those with high page views I thought I'd look at the stats for Maggie. Would you believe 351,090 last month?[31]

Wow, that is a lot. I wonder why there was such a huge surge mid-month? --John (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might have something to do with the new film, The Iron Lady, in which Meryl Streep plays Maggie? Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. I didn't know about that film, it looks interesting. --John (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airdrie United FC[edit]

Please stop removing the paragraph entitled "Rivals" in this article. This section is highly relevant to the club. Other clubs have similar sections - e.g. Motherwell, and other articles about clubs mention rivals (e.g. Rangers) - are you going to wade in and delete those too?

Your deletion makes no mention of the reasons why you are doing so - at the very least that is discourteous to the contributors who have spent time on this article. Would you like me and /or others to start deleting sections you have written without explanation?

Please therefore refrain from continuing to delete this section.

Centre Stand (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my last removal had a garbled edit summary. Like everything on Wikipedia, the material needs to be verifiable. Any material that is not referenced may be removed by any user. If you want me to stop removing it, your best bet would be to provide reliable sources for it. otherwise there is no place for it here. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But on reflection, I kept the section with a tag. You can have a week or so to find sources before I remove it again. I did the same at Motherwell FC. The Rangers article is an example of good practice; see how the rivalries section has quite a lot of references; that's what you are aiming for. Good luck. --John (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The amendments and corrections you have made to the article recently are to be welcomed, but I think you are picking hairs on the above. Whilst you are following the Wikipedia Rule Book I think you are being pedantic, as especially this information is widely known amongst Airdrie and indeed other Scottish football supporters. Seriously - if you are interested in Scottish football you surely would know this without referring to any source!!
It is common knowledge amongst the Airdrie support that their main rival is Motherwell - based on geography, tradition and the entry for The Lanarkshire Derby (in Wikipedia). Would you take an opinion poll of the Rangers supporters to determine their biggest rival, or the Hearts supporters, or Morton supporters, or Sheffield United, or West Ham? It is the same thing - and I can give you the answer to each one of those teams without the need for any verification - it's common knowledge and in the public domain!
However, further evidence to support this can be found linked to football supporters rivalries under "Lanarkshire Derby" and in particular "Section B" article (newspaper references for Motherwell, Ayr Utd, St. Mirren, Albion Rovers - infact all the teams mentioned). So to satisfy you though surely these newspaper articles another contributor referenced under "Section B" article could be used for all of the above teams mentioned in the Rivals section - I am not trying to be awkward but not being very techy why don't you bring these across from that article and use them too? This would provide sufficient references for a credible section.
Centre Stand (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Common knowledge" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. We need reliable sources. Feel free to add them if they are decent and say what you say they say. --John (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you want me to prepare the multiple choice sheet for the next home game then? Know wonder people give up on Wikipedia - the churn rate must be phenomenal of the no. of contributors who get brassed off by it! OK I will be polite - there are newspaper references contained at the foot of the "Section B" article that refer to rivalry & animosity with all the clubs mentioned in that Rivals section. I notice you have contributed/tidied up "Section B" recently - are you able to use these references too and just add them to the Rivals section in the article? Like I said I am not technically minded (no I am not being awkward) - you made a good job already tidying both articles up - please bring the references over to the Rivals section and we'll have a solution!
Centre Stand (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked me so nicely, I will take a look at the references from the other article and see if they support the claims. It isn't all that technical to do this but ok. Normally, the onus is on the editor wishing to add or retain material to do this. I am sorry if you find this irksome, but I am sure you can see what dreadful crap the articles would turn into if we did not insist on reliable third-party sources for the material we publish. --John (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I think the references in the "Section B" article stand up to support claims of rivalry between Airdrie and Motherwell, Albion Rovers, Ayr Utd, St. Mirren and Partick Thistle. Apologies that I cannot do this at the moment - thanks for your help.
Centre Stand (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'll look in the next few days. --John (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry this took me a wee while. Having reviewed the sources on the other article, I cannot see any way to justify the Rivals section on the Airdrie FC article by using them. Unless better references can be found, it looks like the material will have to be removed. This one reference that I can find would not be enough in itself to justify the material, and this Google search does not look all that promising either. Do you have anything better? Not everything we know to be true is suitable for Wikipedia, I am afraid. --John (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No probs - it will be into the New Year before I get a chance to look at this area (and comment) again. In the meantime have a good Christmas and New Year. Centre Stand (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011[edit]

ACR of the AV-8B[edit]

Hi, since you participated in the failed FAC of the AV-8B, I'd like to ask you to participate in the article's MILHIST ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Thank you --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to have a look. Thanks for asking. --John (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestern Exposition and Livestock Show[edit]

Can you apply a cluestick to the person adding copyrighted text to this article? It's getting a bit old. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a word and will block if they do it again. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. I'm willing to be AGF and all once but... after that, it's just distracting.. that's what we pay you admins the big bucks for, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, if I don't threaten to block some poor sap at least once a month, they take away my special badge and parking space. --John (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Uwe Böhm[edit]

Nice attempt to get him working with the project, but I don't think it will get anywhere. His first language is German and he's indefinitely blocked from there with a translated reason of "No desire for encyclopaedic employees identified". That's a bit garbled, but seems to indicate no desire to work with other contributors. So, out of your options, I think getting somebody here to mentor him is the one with the best chance of working. --GraemeL (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is interesting. I thought he might be German from the user name but didn't like to assume. I have a smattering, but don't really have a lot of time to put into this. --John (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked him for a week, specifically for adding insults about other editors as comments in the markup here. I came very close to just making it indef. --GraemeL (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed your crosspost on his talk page. good call. --GraemeL (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the user as he restored his edits after the last warning. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See section above. --GraemeL (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that was unacceptable and I have extended the block to indefinite per my recent warning. I hope that is ok with you, Graeme. As always, indefinite does not need to mean for ever. --John (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, no objections, I came very close to making my initial block indefinite. If he comes back with an agreement to accept mentoring and cooperate with other editors, then would would have to reconsider. Otherwise, things will go smoother without the edit wars. --GraemeL (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as background information: "No discernible intent of encyclopedic collaboration" is probably the most common block reason at the German Wikipedia and tends to be used rather quickly. (In this case after three edits.) His edits in German were not better than those here. He even left his email address on the article. Clearly at least a borderline medical problem. Hans Adler 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is interesting background. --John (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Schools[edit]

This is a bit of a anal request but I'm wondering if you could expand your edit summarys. Its Just Copy edit dosent really explain the removal of content on the school articles. I totally understand why you are doing it but on first glance it just looks like removal of content. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. To be honest I was trying to be polite. An honest summary would probably read something like Removed non-notable promotional garbage, completely unreferenced and probably (badly) written by students or staff of the school. But I will try to aim for something in between. --John (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are quite bad. Your doing a good job. The majority are a bit of a mess which is a shame because they could be good. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was a good comment. --John (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Your doing a good job." You're boy, you're! Write it out 1,000 times and hand it in to me tomorrow morning. --GraemeL (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's long been a matter of wonder to me why so few schools have even quarter-decent articles, even the English grammar schools and those who consider themselves to be language academies. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it at all surprising that the majority of school articles are poor. For starters the people most likely to edit them are the people who go to that school. Though they may well be computer literate, they'll be looking to kill time hence the majority of such edits are vandalism. When you do get someone genuinely interested in the article, sourcing is a rarity because you're not taught in school to state where you've got your information from. Then there's the sources themselves. Where would you find information on a school's history? Very few are notable enough for people to put together histories, and the few I have seen have been by the school's history teachers so they might not be easy to track down. From say the last 10 years you might have online newspaper archives, but what makes it into the local paper isn't always what should appear in an article (take a look at the talk page of Audenshaw School for example) and some important stuff won't make it into the papers. I doubt local newspapers would include information on changes in teaching at a school, say the introduction of a new subject at GCSE. Newsletters may help, but the odds of finding a stack of them to cover the school's whole history are slim. Ofsted reports are the best sources available, but I've not seen any online from before 2006 (though I can't say I've looked very hard). It just looks to me like the odds are that decent articles on schools, regardless of their background, are always going to be a rarity. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OFSTED for England and Wales, and HMIE for Scotland. One other problem I've seen is listings of subjects taught, which tends to be exactly the same for almost every school. It is not to my mind notable that School X presents students for English, Maths, History, Biology etc, because these are the subjects all schools teach at this level. That, and the self-promotional cruft, the lack of references and the over-detailed descriptions of the school football team's results or the name of the teacher who takes kids on trips... I wouldn't exactly call it vandalism as it was doubtless well-intentioned, but it needs as a minimum to conform to WP:V.--John (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished all the Edinburgh ones. Royal High School, Edinburgh is the only half-decent one. The rest could just redirect to the education authority if it was up to me. It isn't, of course. --John (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I ruled Wikipedia things would so different it would make your eyes water. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll bite. Top five items on your wishlist would be? --John (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In no particular order: Dump WP:CIVILITY; no administrators; close down WP:WQA; enforce a properly written WP:NPA; unbundle the administrator tools. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a tension between losing WP:CIV (I agree with you that it has become useless) and enforcing NPA; the latter is just a brightline case of the former. Also, when you unbundle the admin tools (and again I am not necesarily against that), how do you choose who to give the big ones (blocking and deletion) to? Anybody? Autoconfirmed users? I agree that WQA is rubbish; I have never seen it achieve anything whatsoever. I have long held the opinion that WQA and its big brother AN/I only achieve one thing; they entrap loonies in a place where they generally cannot damage actual articles, at least as long as they are tied up there. --John (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My question to you would be who in their right mind would want to have the blocking tool? Some obviously need to have it, but it ought not to be those who want it. I wish I could remember the name of the Native American tribe who chose their chief on the basis of who least wanted the job. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're both anarchists it's safe to say. The paradox is, even anarchists need some kind of enforcement sometimes. Maybe I am getting more pro-establishment as I grow older, partly as a result of having spent time in many different places (including the Internet) where enforcement is more or less effective, and so have come to attach more value to decent enforcement. I don't think anybody in their right mind would want to just have the blocking right. I block very seldom these days; see the section above for a (very sad) case where blocking was the only way forwards and I think I made the right call to indef him. I see it like driving; I don't particularly enjoy driving a car, but if one needs to make a car journey I would rather be the driver than a passenger, as I trust my own driving better than most people's. This, no doubt, is because I am an egotist. --John (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eel fishing in Ely, Cambridgeshire[edit]

John. Thank you for your excellent contribution. I kept it in (after a quick ce on the parentheses) as I like your phrase very much. "Ely" or more pedantically (Old English) "Ēl-gē" means "eel region" and I am hoping your derived sticks. It makes sense to me. Thank you once again --Senra (Talk) 13:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. It was the most surprising thing (to me) on reading the excellent article, and I thought it deserved a place in the lead. --John (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for helping to raise Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA status -- Senra (Talk) 01:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is very generous of you. --John (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011[edit]

GOCE newsletter[edit]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...[edit]

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring[edit]

I'm incredibly disappointed in your having undone an admin action without due consultation based on a specious "strong consensus" drawn from an ANI thread a whole 25 minutes old. I'll be pursuing that later. I'm unsure as to how you became an administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John does not exist), but unilateral unblocks of long-term disruptive editors are certainly unbecoming of contemporary admins.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumperward (talk • contribs)

Unilateral blocks of editors with a well established track record of helping others and improving the encyclopedia are also unbecoming. You should have taken the matter to ANI in the first place to gain consensus for what was obviously going to be a controversial action. Nev1 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:WHEEL; it's ok for one admin to undo another's actions when those actions are plainly wrong, as yours was. Wheel warring would be if you now reblocked. My RfA is linked from my user page. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but next time you need to pursue WP:DR such as RFC/U or Arbcom rather than unilaterally throwing out an indef block on a long-term user. Cheers, --John (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • His actions were certainly not "plainly wrong". Persistent violation of the civility policy is blockable per policy. Please discuss with the blocking admin next time. Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an arguable position, but it is not supported by the strong consensus at AN/I. This is not how we do business here. --John (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no "strong consensus at AN/I". You unblocked an editor with a log for exactly this issue as long as my arm in less than an hour. I'll be pursuing this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - (talk page stalker) - Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guinnog - Youreallycan (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#John involved? regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SpitfireTally-ho! 04:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice effort to blacken my name. And this was especially nicely judged to inflame the situation. You'll be happy you got the result you wanted. Season of good will, eh? Nice work. --John (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Case[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Malleus Fatuorum and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Alexandria (chew out) 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seen and responded. --John (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occidental Petroleum". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for formal mediation here and therefore decline to participate in this process.--John (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year![edit]

I won't be on much between now and the beginning of the New Year, so I'll wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year now (before I forget). Here's to a productive year on Wikipedia, and an even more productive one to come! May you be filled with Achtung spirit, and may the sky not fall down! Happy Holidays! Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wish you all the same. --John (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of you: do have a relaxing end of year, John. Tony (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --John (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis that season again[edit]

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thank you, we are. You too. --John (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate[edit]

All good things John, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!...Modernist (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and lets hope it's a good one! and keep on keeping on...Modernist (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Just the thing for these cold winter nights... --John (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings![edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Jack Daniels
Some proper fortification for the coming year --Epipelagic (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both very much. I hope you have a lovely Christmas. --John (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your Christmas greetings - all the best to you too! Prioryman (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was an honour and a pleasure to work with you on the Vukovar article. --John (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wonder if I might enlist your help on another FAC, which (I hope this doesn't sound immodest) has a good chance of being the most-viewed FA of 2012, assuming it gets through FAC on schedule. See Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which as with Vukovar is a rewrite of a previously rather unsatisfactory article. I'm planning to put it up for GA in January and then take it over to FAC as soon as possible thereafter, with the goal of getting it onto the Main Page on April 15th. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I would be happy to help. --John (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed the work on the Titanic article Prioryman; very impressive. John, a glass of Glenfiddich sometime over the season? Pity the year had to end on such a sour note, but thats the unforgiving two second memory way of wiki. Best not to to be disheartned and just keep on going as before. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would love a glass of single malt; are you buying? Probably a Macallan for preference though there is nothing wrong at all with the old Deer Valley. Keep up the good work yourself, a chara. --John (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm buying yeah, but I assume Jimmy is paying. Har. Tabhair aire duit féin. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, Ceoil. Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda to both of you!
I don't suppose either of you would happen to know someone who might be willing to give the Titanic article a GA review? Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd point towards Faturam, but.....these days and all. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Happy Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas to you too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Merry Christmas from me too (and thanks for your message on my talk page). While I'm here (and because I'm trying to learn from the best), could I ask what you would do about this edit? I mean, it could be genuine, but how does anyone know that it really is his email address? Is it up to the owner of the talk page to decide, or should the edit immediately be reverted, or even expunged? Thanks for your help this year. GFHandel ♬  21:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. That's an interesting one. My inclination would be just to remove the personally identifying information. Sorry I saw it so late. Had an early night last night. --John (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011[edit]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

M20 motorway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The West and The North
M25 motorway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The West and The North
M1 motorway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The North
M40 motorway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The North
M50 motorway (Great Britain) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Midlands

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement[edit]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 08:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-banned editor seeking lift of ban[edit]

Hi John. You topic-banned an editor a while back and he is requesting the ban be lifted, so I thought I would notify you as a courtesy. Thread is here. Best, 28bytes (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I see NW actually banned him and I extended his ban to the talk page. I may well comment there, though it seems consensus has been reached already and I am fine with that. Cheers. --John (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please[edit]

Hi John. When you have a moment, could you please give me some advice about this please? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬  06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John/Archive_2011&oldid=1205858198"