Will, do. Thanks for the heads up. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Somaliweyn10|Somaliweyn10]] ([[User talk:Somaliweyn10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Somaliweyn10|contribs]]) 16:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Will, do. Thanks for the heads up. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Somaliweyn10|Somaliweyn10]] ([[User talk:Somaliweyn10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Somaliweyn10|contribs]]) 16:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== 2011 England riots ==
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. <span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #358;">[[User:Rubywine|Rubywine]]</span> . <span style="color: #35d;"><strong>[[User talk:Rubywine|talk]]</strong></span></span> 01:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 01:02, 31 August 2011
A Note on threading:
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
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. MalleusFatuorum23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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! memphisto11:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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, JonChappleTalk18:22, 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)
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]
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]
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
Hi John, saw you were recently online. If you still are, can you please revdel this[1] whole page? I've already blanked it. An anon (2nd time) is outing another, this time with links to their Facebook profile[2]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN05:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I write here since you welcomed this recently created user account. This user has violated Arbcom sanction 1RR andWP:3RR (some diffs, as there is more, this was like 15RR at least:[3][4][5][6]) 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]
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 [7][8] 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" [9] 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]
(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]
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]
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
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]
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.
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.
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]
