:You're very welcome. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 22:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:You're very welcome. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 22:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
== Care to comment? ==
Hi there,
I thought you might be interested in contributing to a deletion discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cannabis-associated_respiratory_disease here] based on your interest in related subject matter. Best, '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#999999">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">t</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">c</font>]]</span>''' 22:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:35, 24 May 2013
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
John: Just wanted to say thanks for your guidance on minor edits. I appreciate it. Will take heed on my future edits on articles. BTW, read your personal philosophy on the argument about the reliability of Wikipedia as a source. For me, I think it's a very hard one to win given that there are some Wikipedia articles that are so poorly written and thee are some that are very well-written. It's all across the board without much in between. I know many professors refuse to allow their students to use Wikipedia as a source since anyone can edit it and therefore, anyone can edit out pertinent information or add erroneous information. For me, I edit Wikipedia articles as a hobby and only when I have the time to do it. I try to help when I have time. Diving in deep to author an article takes a lot of time which I don't often have. So often my edits are really minor, i.e. correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation. What does attract me is the collaboration to contribute human knowledge about a person or any subject. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Wikipedia should never be used as a source, but then neither should any tertiary source like Britannica. Wikipedia articles are variable in quality for sure, but that's why we have the various peer review processes, for all their imperfections. Wikipedia articles are mainly helpful in academia as rough overviews and as sources of sources. Let me know if I can ever be any help to you in the future. --John (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect I did exactly as you asked in raising the issue at Talk:Margaret Thatcher. You never answered my answer question until after I posted additional material and then issued a warring notice? How fair is that?--User:ksk2875 (talk)
The idea of a talk page is that you seek support there for stuff you want to add. In the absence of such support you do not add the material. --John (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood but you should retract your warring notice. I'm not the one deleting material or trying to undo contributions--User:ksk2875 (talk)
I'm happy to retract it if you are happy not to repeatedly add material against consensus. I can see you have previously been blocked for edit warring so you should know better. --John (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You win. Its obvious you are much more experienced and competent wikipedia user and I have no intention of starting an edit war with you. Clearly you must recognize that the log shows you didn't answer my questions at Talk:Margaret Thatcher until after you deleted my contributions and then issued a warring edict. Was there a consensus for you to delete my contributions? I understand that the wikipedia rules may not require a consensus to delete material that but I would hope to you respect my opinion that it is self-righteous.--User:ksk2875 (talk)
I truly appreciate your insertion of a modified version of the contribution. Thank you.--User:ksk2875 (talk)
Cybernats and Unitrolls
Hi John, I am considering creating a page for the Rev. Stuart Campbell. This Scottish journalist was a hero of mine when I was eleven and used to read Amiga Power - a unique and uncompromising computer-game magazine from the early nineties. He was (and probably still is) regarded as the most famous game-reviewer around, known for his creative and often scathing prose. I would need to do some more research to establish the level of his fame in this field though. He has worked for many titles over the years, including the NME, the Grundiad and Total Football(a list). He later went on to work at the famous (to retro gamers) Sensible Software, and he still designs and reviews games. I guess there haven’t been many computergame reviewers in Wikipedia yet, but the plot thickens..
Having only recently got online, I was slightly surprised to find that he is now a prominent figure in the Scottish Independence debate. Apparently his political blog "Wings Over Scotland" recently overtook The Scotsman in readership figures (need proof yet). Researching his output (and the bitter debates) online, I’ve come across new terms like "cybernat" and "unitroll" which aren’t mentioned in WP. It shows how the newspapers are facing increasing competition from the blogosphere .
Pat Kane writes in The Scotsman:
"The well-known cybernat site Wings Over Scotland managed something extraordinary the other week. Through a crowd-funding platform, it raised over £30,000 to support his media monitoring and original reportage (from an independence perspective). Wings’ founder, the Rev Stuart Campbell, has the ambition to create a Daily Record for the Yes campaign. No matter what you think of that goal, it’s a tangible example of how it’s possible for light-cost digital operators, with a clear idea of their community, to successfully appeal to them for financial commitment." 2 April 2013
I think an entry for Rev Stuart Campbell would be ok in terms of notability, but he is a very controversial figure (for many reasons, e.g. this) and I haven’t created a Living Person bio yet. I request your advice in particular because I believe you are from Scotland (?) and you probably know the political scene better, and as a mop-holder you could help me in what might be a tricky article (if done in depth). If you, or any TPSs out there think I shouldn’t bother, or have any advice, then please let me know before I get too into creating this article, as I have others in the pipeline. Cheers. Hillbillyholidaytalk03:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John, my main concern would be edit-warring. "RevStu" has many fans and quite a few enemies. Another new (and rather contentious) Living Person bio I was thinking of doing was Paul Britton aka The Real-Life Cracker. With all the cases he's been involved with (Fred West, Rachel Nickell, James Bulger, etc) and for being an early and famous Forensic psychologist, he really should have an entry. The Heinz Baby Food Scare as related in The Jigsaw Man is particularly interesting and could warrant an article of its own. Amazingly The Gndiiaaun once gave his name as "Paul Gritton" in a byline! Hillbillyholidaytalk05:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completed the article for Rev. Stuart Campbell. I contacted the Reverend to let him know that he was the subject of an new WP entry, and while rather pleased, he did state that he had to request the deletion of a previous article (and that was before all the "debate") due to edit-warring. As he is a much more prominent figure since the last the article was craeted, could I ask that you (or any other admins) to keep an eye out and quickly move to semi-protect if the need arises> Thanks. Hillbillyholidaytalk17:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice article, well done. I think some of the sourcing is a bit weak but I am pretty sure it would survive an AfD. It'd be even better if you could find some more sources. Do you think you could? --John (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. I was concerned about the over-reliance on blogs for sources, some factual details were corrected, and the two quotes that I thought might be jokes were quickly removed by brand new user User talk:CaptainCorrecto(?!) Although they were well known for their irreverent style, the AP staff writers (esp. Rev. Stu) prided themselves on accuracy and accurate reporting when it came to important facts. I think I have some old issues lurking in the loft, but other than that I don't think there is much else. As blogs overtake newspapers in the future, I think we'll have more problems like this. Intriguing article though isn't it? I loved finding out more about Paddy Roy Bates in particular. Hillbillyholidaytalk19:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you don't think the article should cite the Daily Mail, that's one thing. But how in the world do you think it helps to remove the Daily Mail citations, while leaving in all the information that was cited to the Daily Mail? I believe I've now removed the information that came from the DM, but I had to make an effort to point out how nonsensical that was. The article has a quote that only appears in the Daily Mail, and cites the Daily Mail for it. You apparently believe the Daily Mail is unreliable, so you take out the citation, so the article just contains the unreliable information and doesn't even show the reader that the source was the Daily Mail. Really? Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apparently understand it better than you do, if you think it says that when you see potentially damaging material that's not cited to a reliable source, you should leave the potentially damaging material intact. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to try to explain it to you, if you still don't understand why your conduct was so irrational, counterproductive and self-defeating. But otherwise I'm not going to keep coming back here to be congratulated. I'm unwatching your Talk page; you can leave a note on mine if you want to request tutoring. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning. Your name was mentioned at WP:ANI. Most of your reverts are nonsense, such as restoring a link to a redirect.[1] Most of the edits were good edits that you are reverting. Apteva (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note you are seeking to lecture me on wikipedia policy on UK nationalities. You claim to be 'Scottish' so you are certainly not an unbiased judge of Maxwell's nationality! A bit self-righteous, I would say. British as a description is a) correct and b) not at all partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.242.36 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add the part of the wiki policy on UK nationalities which claims it is not ok to call everyone British is wholly flawed. Who thought this up? It is clearly ideal to describe by default all as British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.242.36 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. We work by consensus here and I am renowned for being capable of editing outside my nationality. I am equally grumpy to people of all nations. Who are you, dynamic IP? --John (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to draw your attention to this article, John. It is getting close to an edit-war, I'm not sure of the ins-and-outs of this one, I just wikilinked User:CaptainCorrecto's contribution. I won't speculate any further on the identity of this newish user, except to say that it looks like he might be "correct" in this case, but doesn't seem to be the sort of person who backs down. Cheers. Hillbillyholidaytalk08:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
her [[Blond Ambition World Tour]], which lasted until August.<ref>{{cite web|title=Madonna.com > Tours > Blond Ambition Tour|url=http://www.madonna.com/tour/index/tour/id/2|publisher=Madonna.com|
]".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.madonna.com/discography/index/album/albumId/5/|title=Madonna.com > Discography > Erotica|work=Icon: The Official Madonna Website|publisher=Madonna.com|accessdate=June 9, 2008}}</
29, 2010}}</ref> and topped the British tabloid ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]''{'}}s list of "The 50 female singers who will never be forgotten."<ref name="Yahoo Brazil">{{cite web|
and image."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allmusic.com/artist/madonna-mn0000237205|title=Madonna > Biography|publisher=Allmusic. Rovi Corporation|first=Stephen Thomas|last=Erlewine|accessdate=
Are you willing to reinstate the deleted threads at the Jimmy Savile article? Feel free to remove lines if you wish, but I think the referenced material is relevant even if somewhat controversial. S. Fight (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Since you enlightened me at the FAC for Song of Innocence, I was wondering if you could tell me if I'm right regarding the opening statement in this article's section. I've been arguing with another editor that they are synthesizing things from two different sources. Dude's putting doubts in my mind, LOL. Dan56 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything actually going to be done about this issue? I've seen nothing to indicates that USchick has acknowledged that Wikipedia copyright policy has been violated, and the ANI thread is getting nowhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you see her violate any more copyrights and I will pop in a wee block. It isn't right that she be allowed to waste volunteers' time like this. Whether it's lack of competence or dishonesty I do not care at this point as she has had all the warning she should need. I hope she gets the message and a block won't be necessary. Meantime, I would like you to disengage from the AN/I thread and let others handle it. --John (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abiogenesis Article
There are several areas of the article which lack citations. Why, did you freeze that page without them? Thank you SpazAbiogenesis (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
" Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."[reply]
Whoever from the Harvard Center for Astrophysics was trying to get citations removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpazAbiogenesis (talk • contribs)
It was a ridiculous edit war and you need to take your concerns to article talk. When the protection is expired I will block anyone reverting at all on the article, so this is your chance to decide a compromise version. Admins who protect are always accused of protecting the wrong version; it can't be helped. Unless living people or legal issues are involved, it doesn't matter if the article is slightly inaccurate for a couple of weeks. --John (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and I am sure the SPI will deal with that angle. Nevertheless, there needs to be a discussion at article talk to decide what to do about the content dispute. --John (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The audacity you display in making sweeping bold edits and threatening to block anyone who reverts you but then just ignoring talk page conversations on the topic of the edits is utterly, utterly sickening. I'm sure you'd be quick enough to step back in if someone dared edit the article, but a talk page discussion? I'm sure you've got much more important things to do. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have got better things to do than hang around there and be called an idiot or a troll. Other than to tell me you are upset, what was the point of posting here? The last point I made at article talk remains unaddressed; you need to find better sources as we cannot use tabloids on a BLP. Feel free to ping me again if you do that. Until then, --John (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have "to find better sources". As I have explained, your interpretation of policy is utterly bogus. Context matters when judging the reliability of sources; while extraordinary claims require a number of strong sources, uncontroversial claims can be cited to less extraordinary sources. So, for instance, an article in The Times alongside one from the BBC, both reporting that a politician has been charged with a crime, may be appropriate for including information about a criminal record. However, information about (say) the plotline of a character in Coronation Street may be appropriately cited to an episode summary in The Mirror or an interview in OK! magazine with the actor. Very uncontroversial information is often left uncited- our policies and guidelines allow for this; for instance, the GA criteria require only that certain kinds of information is cited. The fact that you chose to remove the article's sources but not the article's content reveals just how benign the content is, in many cases- how could it possibly be better to leave claims in a BLP unsourced than leave them sourced to sources you don't like? J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are all points you have made in article talk. I have read them. I don't agree that the section I have highlighted from the previous version of the article (it's in red to make it really visible) comes into the category "Very uncontroversial information". If you want to restore this material it needs better sourcing. If you want to argue that uncontroversial information doesn't need proper sourcing (I am dubious, but you're right, I left some of the innocuous stuff there with a {{cn}} tag for now) then you can feel free to make that point in article talk, or ask others' opinions (WP:BLPN?) If you can do so without calling me a vandal, a troll or an idiot, you will probably increase the possibility of our having a productive discussion and coming to an amicable compromise. I can tell you are annoyed, but try to see that I am only trying to preserve our core values here, and I know you are too. --John (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding "As far as I'm concerned, this is an administrator misrepresenting policy and threatening to block those who disagree with him in a content dispute."; if you do wish to spin it that way in an effort to win, I caution you to beware of the boomerang! Policy is utterly unambiguous regarding the need to have reliable sourcing on BLPs, and you would be struggling to portray this as a "content dispute" given that I have not substantively edited the article until I came to clean up the BLP violations. I am unambiguously wearing my admin hat on this matter and I have no apologies to make about anything I have done. You on the other hand have (twice) called me an "idiot" (FWIW I have a dazzlingly high IQ) and once called me a troll. I don't think that would look all that good if you did go to Arbcom. Up to you of course. I recommend you find better sources for the material you want to keep on the article; that was and remains the best way forwards. --John (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really starting to struggle to believe that you're doing anything other than try to provoke me, now. I'm going to list some responses to your comments above.
"I don't agree that the section I have highlighted from the previous version of the article (it's in red to make it really visible) comes into the category "Very uncontroversial information"." That a girl lives in a town, that her father is an engineer and that she liked watching films with her grandmother is controversial? What planet do you live on?
"If you want to argue that uncontroversial information doesn't need proper sourcing (I am dubious, but you're right, I left some of the innocuous stuff there with a {{cn}} tag for now) then you can feel free to make that point in article talk, or ask others' opinions (WP:BLPN?)" I don't want to argue that. It's written straight into policy. From WP:V- "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." From the GAC- "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Both require only that certain kinds of information is cited.
"you will probably increase the possibility of our having a productive discussion and coming to an amicable compromise" You're threatening to block anyone who reverts your edits. You have absolutely no right to talk about "compromise".
"I can tell you are annoyed" Wow, you really must have "have a dazzlingly high IQ".
"try to see that I am only trying to preserve our core values here" I tried. I'm only human.
"if you do wish to spin it that way in an effort to win, I caution you to beware of the boomerang!" Don't patronise me. You've been spinning and misrepresenting policy since this dispute began. There's very little chance of this ending amicably while you continue the way you are.
"Policy is utterly unambiguous regarding the need to have reliable sourcing on BLPs" Of course it is. You and I just disagree over what constitutes a reliable source. I believe that context is important, as our policy on reliable sources says. You, apparently, do not, and work tirelessly to remove sources listed on Wikipedia:List of tabloid newspapers which cannot be used in any way in any BLP. (Hold on, when did that get deleted?)
"I am unambiguously wearing my admin hat on this matter and I have no apologies to make about anything I have done" How come you're allowed to wear your admin hat and I'm not?
"You on the other hand have (twice) called me an "idiot"" I have said that if you believe a claim that is clearly false, then you are an idiot. You then repeatedly affirmed that you believed it. This isn't my fault. Bill: Tom, if you touch that, you're an idiot. Tom, touching the fire: How dare you call me an idiot!
"I recommend you find better sources for the material you want to keep on the article; that was and remains the best way forwards." I wouldn't dare. I'd probably end up blocked for citing the wrong kind of source- sadly, I haven't got a handy list of banned publications.
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.
I've offered a proposed solution to this situation. I hope you will find it reasonable and amenable- if so, I'm happy to start working on adjusted the article as soon as we are both ready. (I will be away from Wikipedia shortly, but back online for an hour or two in about six hours, and then will be available at various times tomorrow.) J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
