User talk:John

A Note on threading: Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page. If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it. If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it. I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to. please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:John/Pooh policy)

Click to show archived versions of this talk page

User talk:John/Archive 2006 User talk:John/Archive 2007 User talk:John/Archive 2008 User talk:John/Archive 2009 User talk:John/Archive 2010 User talk:John/Archive 2011 User talk:John/Archive 2012 User talk:John/Archive 2013 User talk:John/Archive 2014 User talk:John/Archive 2015 User talk:John/Archive 2016 User talk:John/Archive 2017 User talk:John/Archive 2018 User talk:John/Archive 2018-2022

Sarah Olney Hi John! You removed a number of details and their sources from Sarah Olney citing "no tabloids on BLPs please". I restored them as the guidance at WP:BLPSOURCES refers to tabloid journalism not tabloids. The difference comes down to whether or not the piece is based on gossip or is sensationalist in content. Those used in the article are simple biography pieces in a tabloid newspaper. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC) For example, "Born in 1977, Olney went to Surrey Comprehensive School, before going on to study English literature at King’s College London [1]", is not in any way shape or form biased/sensationalist/gossip, its just stating facts. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. We can't use tabloids to source information on living people, per WP:BLPSOURCES. I've removed this material again. Please don't restore it a second time. I'll pop a template on your user talk just to avoid any further doubt. --John (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) If the Sun prints something that is true, the probability that a more respectable news source will have the information is approximately 1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Hear, hear. --John (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Note The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi John, I have just closed the discussion at WP:ANI with the following comments: I am closing this thread with the result that User:John is admonished for edit warring and incivility. A block at this time is not necessary but he is warned that future occurrences will likely result in a block. Your actions in this instance were seen by many to below the standards expected, especially for an administrator. While there is no consensus to block you at this time, please bear in mind that such a block would have been justified. Your experience and knowledge are very much needed and appreciated, and I am confident that we can now put the incident behind us and move forward. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC) What was the incivility? --John (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Calling others' contributions "bullshit" and other similar phrasing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC) What other similar phrasing? --John (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Take your time, Martin; I can see you are offline User:MSGJ, but I do require an answer to this. If you intend to block me for some "future occurrences" of using the word "bullshit" "and other similar phrasing" to describe others' contributions, I think it would be as well to list the similar phrasings that you say I have used that you do not like here so we are all clear where we are. Please do so within 24 hours. Thanks. --John (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Any progress on this, User:MSGJ? --John (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I will reply later, but I don't feel the need to meet any deadlines you set. We are all volunteers here. I am disappointed that you, as many would perceive, are wikilawyering the point, rather than accepting it and moving on — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Your disappointment is noted, but see WP:ADMINACCT. If you are going to place a restriction on my editing you should be prepared to state what that restriction is in a reasonable timescale. If you cannot do so I will regard your admonishment as null and void. --John (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC) While we are discussing this, I'd also be interested to know roughly how much time you spent investigating the report before closing it. Did you, for example, look at the discussion at Talk:Acela Express? --John (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Yes I did read the whole thing. While your position was defensible, your attitude was belligerent, your tone was dismissive of other's contributions, and you were uncivil. In short your posts were not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere, and that was recognised by the majority of participants to the ANI discussion. In contrast your posts yesterday were entirely acceptable so I'm not quite sure why we are still discussing this, as you are clearly aware of the distinction. With regard to your specific question I cannot find any other specific phrases that were regarded as problematic, but as I note above it is often not what you say but how you say it. You may disregard those four words if it pleases you. But in my review today I noticed that you were warned about edit warring as recently as August so you were especially lucky not to have been blocked this time. And now, I hope this has answered all your questions because I really would prefer not to spend any longer on this matter. Good evening and see you round — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks for replying. It still isn't clear enough though. From reading the above, it sounds like you would block me if I used the word "bullshit" again, which seems draconian. Wikipedia is not censored, WP:CIVIL is in the eye of the beholder, User:Mackensen said he "[didn't] mind the profanity", and I think you'd find it hard to describe that as a personal attack. I was responding to two things; one was this rude comment from User:Oknazevad and the other was this (note rude edit summary from the same editor), followed by this removal by User:Mackensen of an article improvement tag I placed in the article to reflect that the matter was being discussed in talk (in a discussion I initiated on 25 October). Note the edit summary: I do not think I need a consensus to place a tag! That's a new one on me, and I continue to "call bullshit" on this, which is a "term meaning "nonsense", especially as a rebuke in response to communication or actions viewed as deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false." (to quote our article, linked above) The repeated claim by several editors there that there is a consensus to falsely describe the Acela Express as a "high-speed" service does not bear any close examination; if you trawl through the talk page it's been raised numerous times over the years and anybody raising it has been browbeaten by this same group of editors using a spurious argument. I think in your position, it behoves you to look at the antecedent rudeness and false claims that annoyed me so much I used the unpleasant word, else such is highly likely to occur again, if not to me to someone else. There are almost always two sides to a story, as one or two contributors at the peanut gallery pointed out. Finally, I think you, I, and the contributors to the drama board discussion have all been wound up (I think "trolled" is the modern word) by the same user, whose unhelpfulness you have already pointed out at your talk. I'll tell you what I'll do going forward; I'll try to refrain from pointing out that bullshit is bullshit and instead say "nonsense" in future which means exactly the same thing. I'll also make fewer reverts, but I would like you to mention to the other two editors I mentioned here the unhelpful role they played in this silly incident. How does that sound? --John (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Disappointed you haven't got the moral courage or basic competence to investigate this properly and fairly. You made a false claim ("other similar phrasing") then squirmed away from it without apology. You should think seriously about your own competence before taking action in a case like this again. I explicitly reserve the right to call out dishonest and invalid claims as "bullshit" going forward. I regard your bullshit admonishment as null and void. --John (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC) How you describe other editors is your problem, not mine. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Good to see you. You're a former admin and arbitrator; do you still think I need consensus to add a tag indicating that something was being discussed in talk? Or was that a mistake? Could you honestly look through that talk page and see a firm consensus to describe the train as an (unqualified) "high-speed" one? Firm enough for people to revert rather than discussing in talk, as happened? --John (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC) You'd proposed a change, it was up to you to justify it when you were reverted. I'd say the problem is you consider the change so self-evident you're not prepared to engage with anyone who disagrees with you. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Disappointed you couldn't find the courage to answer either of my questions. You were wrong on the content issue and you know it. You were wrong to remove the tag, and you know it exacerbated the situation, and you haven't the courage to admit it. My choice of epithet was accurate and I was restrained not to use a stronger word than "bullshit". --John (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.