User talk:JohnWheater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, JohnWheater, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Your choice of words is definitly better than mine! Good that you changed it! I love English, but I am not born English. Regards, Tellervo Tellervo 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, go on with your plan to write about the authenticity of "Commentariolum". I had no plan to add anything about this booklet. Did Marcus Tullius himself, write it after all?? Regards

again!Tellervo 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for taking care of my pople. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Horace Odes & J. Michie[edit]

If you're still interested in Horace you might like to read my remarks on this topic. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put a reference to Michie's translation on the Horace page. His obituary makes it clear that he was taken seriously as a translator by WH Auden. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I'd like to make Sir Isaac the default for Newton - which surely is what people want. But I don't know how. Would someone do it - or teach me to fish?:-)

Hi there, there a lot of different meaning for Newton, therefore I don't think that would be advisable. There is a disambiugation page for Newton, which provides information on all possible articles with Newton in them. This is accesible here. I hope this helps! --The Helpful One (Review) 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)



I'd like to make Sir Isaac the default for Newton - which surely is what people want. But I don't know how. Would someone do it - or teach me to fish?:-)

Hi there,
I know you think Sir Isaac Newton is more important, but really Newton is named after Sir Isaac Newton, and the first sentence has a link to his name, therefore I would advise again changing it. --The Helpful One (Review) 10:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's what I will suggest. I suggest that you establish a consensus to change it, on the Newton talk page, located here. If the editors that discuss on that page agree, then it will be changed. If not, then there will be no change. I hope this helps! --The Helpful One (Review) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! Sorry if I came around that way, if you want to change the Newton to Sir Isaac Newton, then you would be able to do so, there is no "Elite Wiki PriestHood". You can change the article to be Sir Isaac Newton, but if it gets reverted, then you would have to discuss it on the talk page, so that editors can agree. If they don't agree to it, then that's what I meant by there will be *no change* - if other editors don't agree too - then I don't think you will be able to have it as Sir Isaac Newton for Newton. I hope this resolves your problem! :) The Helpful One (Review) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Help me[edit]


Guidelines for default page[edit]

It is my view that a search for a common name, where one holder of the name is overwhelmingly well-known, should show first the page for the well-known holder. At present it is just silly that searches for –a)Lincoln, --b)Newton, and –c)Wellington, lead to: --a)an etymological discussion, --b)a term in physics, --c)a city in New Zealand (ironically, the latter two are named after the well-known holders). In each case there are instructions for disambiguation, but the need to go again is merely an irritant to the large majority of enquirers. The page of the well-known holder should offer disambiguation, as for example London does, but should be the first page the enquirer sees.


I understand that the nature of Wiki is splendidly unauthoritarian, but there are guidelines to good practice (like no POV for example), and I should like this point to be considered by whatever people have the personal weight to get a guideline accepted.


I should be glad to receive a response from someone other than ‘TheHelpfulOne’, who feels the default for each page should be left open, without guidance. The following is a copy of my enquiries on their talk page, to which their replies, in our ‘dialogue of the deaf’ above, refer:


Thanks for answering my plea for help, and yes, there are many things called Newton. But seriously, seriously now, what do you think the enquirer usually wants? Is it the SI unit of force? Is it the chocolate bar? Is it the pop group? No! It is Sir Isaac, a man who 'doth bestride this petty world like a colossus". Can you help me make him top? Replacing the SI unit of force, which is currently top. Let's help not to make Wiki a laughing stock! John Wheater (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for repeating your previous advice, but I seriously disagree. Is there some way opinion among cognoscenti such as yourself could be canvassed? I see the same laughable error with 'Wellington', where priority goes to the obscure city which was named after him! John Wheater (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear Helpful It does seem unlikely that you & I will be able to reach agreement on this matter. Your idea of polling those interested in Newton seems particularly odd, as the problem is not confined to Sir Isaac, but is shared by the Duke of Wellington, Abraham Lincoln, and General Ulysses S. Grant. To me it seems clear that a google ‘feeling lucky’ approach is right for towering world figures. The myriad other matches should be shown by “This page is about the US President Abraham Lincoln. For other Lincolns please see…” In this way the irritation of the second search is not experienced by the majority of enquirers. And it stops Wikipedia looking silly. I notice also that the mood of your advice has changed from subjunctive to imperative:-). When you say (my emboldening) "…I suggest that you establish a consensus to change it, on the Newton talk page, located here. If the editors that discuss on that page agree, then it will be changed. If not, then **there will be no change**. I hope this helps! --The Helpful One (Review) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)", it looks as though the desired change could only be applied by a sort of elite Wiki Priesthood. Is that right? It seems quite contrary to principle. If it is open to anyone, maybe you could point me to where the instructions are. I’d also like to submit this point to a larger forum than just thee & me. Any suggestions? With best wishes, Yours aye,

Last word on this topic[edit]

So it is, unless I can help. unsigned by JohnWheater, 08:27, 10 May 2008

Give me a moment to look into this.
(offtopic) don't forget to sign your comments.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 09:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
WIkipedia, has a single to small group mentality for editing that might cause for problems as the one you are concerned with, but this system is also a factor in the success of the project.
Help people, may agree or disagree with you on whether Wellington should link to a city by that name or to a famous person but it's not the helper's role to make that decision. A helper needs to guide you on policy and give you your options for pursuing the change you want accomplished.
There's a number of options I can think of.
  1. Be WP:BOLD and make the change. If there's an objection by the regular contributors to the pages you changed, then you should discuss the change with those people (not with the help people). If discussion fails, follow WP:DR. You could also raise your concerns/suggestion on the talk page before making the change to see if there's any reasoning against the change that you are unaware of.
  2. Place a public note on a page such as the Village Pump to see how long time contributors (not the help people) feel about your suggestion.
There's probably other options out there, but these are the ones that come to mind as most probable.
Hope this helps you move forward with the change you're interested in, I can certainly see the issue come into concern with Lincoln. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bright's Disease[edit]

John, I found that your last edit of Bright's disease caused a double up of the content. I undid and re-entered your Mozart edit. (I forgot to login but it is the 12:53, September 26, 2009 reference). martyvis (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

dual polyhedron or polar polyhedron[edit]

Putting the same link on each of two synonyms doesn't convey to me the message that you intended, that the target article clarifies the alternate term; on another hand, if two common terms exist I'd hope that the article explains them both even without such a signal. I'm peeved if I click on what look like two separate links and they open the same page. Perhaps you'd like to add a link to Pole and polar? —Tamfang (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of Pole and Polar, but it doesn't help immediately with polar and our solids. But I couldn't find anything suitable. Maybe "...or polar (see Dual Polyhedron)...". John Wheater (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting, then,
Every polyhedron has a dual polyhedron .... The dual or polar (see Dual polyhedron) of every Platonic solid ....
 ? Someone will just remove it as I did!
I have no more suggestions for solving your non-problem. You might have better luck in Talk:Platonic solid. —Tamfang (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tetrahedral hypothesis[edit]

Hello, I was added an article on William Lowthian Green because of his political history, and stumbled across his theory. I tried to expand a bit and use inline citations. If you have a chance to take a look and see if I did any damage it would be appreciated. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and hope we can work out a compromise. You are right I am not a geologist, but Wikipedia is intended for people who do not already know the subject matter. Wikipedia:Peacock was the guideline I was using to remove the opinion about "high standing". The fact that Holmes is named and has own article linked is proof of his notability. Perhaps adding a second reference to him at the end would make sense, since he wrote prolifically about the folow-on theories. That would not be undue weight nor expressing an opinion.

As for the last sentence, I will agree it could still be expanded. I did not understand what was meant by "...implies that the anomalies addressed by the tetrahedral hypothesis are indeed only apparent, and need no explanation; certainly they are unexplained." Should we say "they remain unexplained" or maybe something like "although plate tectonics explains...." or just "modern theories do not give any particular role to the tetrahedral shape". I will try one more pass. W Nowicki (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How can one change the title of an article[edit]

{{helpme-helped}} Convention of Sintra should be Cintra:

1) How to change it.
2) How to update references.

John Wheater (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on a cursory search of the alternatives, it does look like the convention is usually referred to as Cintra, even though the current name of the town is Sintra. I suggest that you use the procedure described in WP:RM to propose the change. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1. I moved it for you; Convention of Cintra.
2. Because the redirect from Convention of Sintra will work, it should be 'ok' and any double-redirects will be sorted out automatically. However, you might want to search and fix the spelling in the articles that shows.  Chzz  ►  17:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops. @Favonian, sorry. I googled too, [1] and saw that it all seemed to be Cintra (except Wikipedia), and thought it'd be non-controversial - before seeing your above note. Apologies; it can always be moved back if someone objects.  Chzz  ►  17:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You're a bolder Wikipedian than I am, Chzz. (Sorry Kipling) Good move, can't see any reasonable objections. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit a protected page[edit]

{{Help Me}} I'd like to add the information below at the head of the articles for the countries. It is strictly NPOV, but true and important. Would some admin help me?

The United States is one of the four notable countries which have come into being in modern times (since the death of Handel) by the forcible dispossession of a long-established indigenous people. The other three are Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

The lead and body of our article on the United States, for example, already talks about displacement of the Native Americans. I'm not sure that adding that it's one of only four modern countries that did so to indigenous peoples and listing the countries is a fact that is relevant enough for inclusion and think you should instead discuss this first on each of the article's talk pages, also explaining what citation you intend to add in conjunction to verify the fact. You may have just been talking about it here (for reasons I am not clear on), but I am rather sure adding this fact to any of the articles as being one of four since the death of Handel would be a rather random factoid that I for one would revert as a trivial intersection of facts. Did you intend to imply that you would be mentioning Handel in these edits? In any event, the Articles on the United States, Canada and Australia are only semi-protected and you are autoconfirmed so there should be no barrier to direct editing. New Zealand is not protected at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Two points - the mention of Handel, far from a 'random factoid' (!) helps to set the events in context. We listen to his music,know what he looked like, and yet all these things happened since his time. My view is that noticing the time of these events, and linking them with the national psyche, is of interest in a cyclopaedic sense. This, though, could take its chance in the hurly-burly of Wikidom if I was able to edit the content. But in fact I cannot. It says auto-confirmed can edit, but in fact the content is somehow within templates, and the source is editable only by admins.John Wheater (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
What happens when you click on "edit this page" at the top of the article? Does the page not have that link but says "view source" instead? If so this could be because of two things I know of. One is that there is a well known bug (though I thought they had fixed it) where sometimes semi-protected articles will display like fully-protected ones, but if you click on view source, you can edit anyway. Second, users who are editing behind a TOR or similar network may not be able to edit semi-protected pages. Do either of those apply to you? To target the issue, please describe in more detail what you are trying to edit, how you are invoking the edit and what happens when you do so. As to the Handel issue, it seems an incredibly random choice and inappropriate and confusing, as if the modern age by convention is described as the "post Handel age" or something of the sort. Why not Marie Antoinette, Martha Jefferson, Jane Austen, Edgar Allan Poe, Napoleon Bonaparte, Benjamin Franklin... Picking any famous name and inserting it into the article as a demarcation point for pre- and post-modern age would read to me as a non sequitur. Again, though, you can right now post a proposed edit to any article's talk page. If a page is protected, then you can use either the {{edit protected}} or {{edit semi-protected}} templates--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I chose 'view source' and got 'admin only'. I think an historical figure familiar to the educated English speaker is appropriate to 'fix' a point in time. I favoured Mozart, but he was post-1776! And it's not pre- and post-modern, but a recent point within modern. Still, I'm losing interest now - I followed your advice & tried NZ, but got reverted immediately with 'very opinionated'. Whereas it is plain true, and carefully NPOV; it happened, it is important, and should be prominent. Many thanks for your interest.

New Zealand[edit]

Hi John. I have noticed your edits to New Zealand. If you want to include information to an article then you need to make sure it has a cite, especially if it is likely to be challenged. Once it is challenged (even when cited), especially by multiple editors, it is best to make your case on the talk page. Continually adding in challenged material will most liekly resut in a block for edit warring. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this no doubt well-intentioned intervention. New Zealand fell victim to my edit as the others were protected - maybe you should protect NZ also. The point is, though, that no citation is needed. The countries listed were in fact wrested from indigenous people in modern times; this is common knowledge. My view is that this fact, for better or worse, is a most important parameter in the definition of those countries. (The Americans joke about 'giving the country back to the Indians', I don't know if the Kiwis have a similar. I think the immediate reaction to my edit, reverting the information as being controversial, shows a POV very contrary to the spirit of things. Still, I only tried reverting once, I believe, and have established what I feared, that the fact is uncomfortable. Better it were recorded, and faced.John Wheater (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

/* Calibre of Long Cecil" */[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JohnWheater. You have new messages at NJR ZA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.