|
Hello John. I understand that you don't like the Daily Mail. I can't say that I'm a fan of it either, and have removed info sourced to it myself (see here). However I think some consideration has to be paid to context. The edit you made here, for example, is not in a BLP and the info you removed was not particularly controversial (and unlike my Sean Penn removal, it could also easily be corroborated by another source, which I subsequently did). Furthermore, your edit summary was misleading, and certainly caused my eyebrows to be raised. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note. The only thing I agree with you on is that my edit summary could have been more descriptive. The material I removed which was sourced to a publication with a reputation for regularly making up lies, is controversial and does concern a living person (Anneka Rice) in quite a negative way. I see you have restored the criticism with a better source and I am not sure that was the right thing to do, or if this is due weight on this article. I may raise the matter in article talk. --John (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, UsamahWard (talk · contribs) has been editing that article, and I'm concerned about the sourcing (esp per BLP policy).
For example;
in a case of child abuse which he had wrongly linked to a mosque.[1] The Telegraph deleted Gilligan's article and issued a correction,[2][3] though he later denied any story he had written had been corrected.[4]
The above is firstly referenced to a news item which was later retracted, and then "supported" by a blog source; you can note that the last reference states "I'm a senior reporter for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. This is my personal blog" - and thus not an appropriate reference at all.
I think it should be removed, but last time I tried that, I got myself blocked. I'd also previously posted concerns on BLPN (as you advised), but that didn't seem to help much; I'm not at all interested in Wikipedia machinations, but I am hoping you can perhaps do something about this problem.
Thanks, 88.104.20.17 (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've raised this again at BLPN. --John (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this IP editor wrongly giving the impression that I've just made another controversial edit? Please check the article's recent history, I merely reinstated reference to Gilligan's entirely non-controversial career at the Evening Standard. The only recent edit to the paragraph the IP editor refers to was by Martinlc (talk · contribs), who removed a couple of the sources cited above, as he felt they were not strong enough. I discussed this with him on his talk page, he gave his reasons, and I was happy to leave it at that. Why remove it as it stands now, it is sourced from the Leveson Enquiry and from the Telegraph's own published correction? UsamahWard (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't remove it. I raised it at a central discussion, as I noted above. --John (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the IP editor's wish to remove it, I note you have left this paragraph intact. UsamahWard (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again John; despite your previous polite requests that that user not add things without consensus, they are continuing to do so; for example [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc.
It's getting silly. I've been happy to discuss whether it should be included, and personally I don't think it should be; obviously, that user does. But there's no consensus for it, and the only time others have commented they've also been against it.
I've suggested he could of course create an RfC - but... well, he just keeps adding it back without consensus.
Can you help? 88.104.4.74 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome another viewpoint on the introduction to the article, which is why I posted an RFC. As for "... and the only time others have commented they've also been against it", this appears to be another untruth, I see no other comments about the introduction - I'm happy to be shown otherwise. The repeated removal of this text citing WP:BLP is inappropriate, as BLP requires removal where sourcing is weak, which doesn't apply here. The IP editor has constantly changed their reason for removing the text, initially protesting the phrase "best known", which had stood since 2004, and is supported by sources (examples in the talk page). Even so, in the spirit of finding a way forward I left out the word "best", but then even saying he was "known" for this issue was deemed objectionable by the IP editor. Despite the countless strong sources that make such a position untenable, I reworded it again so it didn't include the word known. Then the objection raised was that it was negative, which is a bizarre interpretation of the very neutral text; and even if it were, it still wouldn't be a problem, as explained in WP:LEAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsamahWard (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- John, events moved on, sadly I had to post to the cesspit that is called ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Andrew_Gilligan 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented there. --John (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chipotle Mexican Grill may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- '''Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.''' ({{IPAc-en|tʃ|ɨ|ˈ|p|oʊ|t|l|eɪ}},<ref name=barnes/> is a chain of restaurants in the United States,
- {{cite web | url = http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1058090/ 000119312512052969/d280751d10k.htm> | title = Form 10-K Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. | publisher = SEC| accessdate = 2012-10-19}}</ref>
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks BB, you're invaluable. --John (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John
I have just joined Wikipedia in an effort to try and have the page for the organisation I work for updated. In an effort to avoid being unethical, I wondered if this is something you might consider taking on, as looking at the history of the page it looks like you wrote the orginal page, or at least contributed considerably?
The Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS) became the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) on 1 April 2013, as part of reform to police and fire services in Scotland (i.e. eight Scottish police forces merging into one Police Scotland). As such, the PCCS wiki page is now quite out of date. The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 saw the PCCS take on responsibility for investigating the most serious incidents involving the police as well as continuing with the complaints review function and remit to drive up standards in police complaints handling.
There seems to be a page set up for the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner that has been linked to from the IPCC wiki, but no content has been added.
By way of providing some background, there is the PIRC website, the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 and the Scottish Government website. The Scottish Parliament website also holds some information in relation to the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, at which the current Commissioner John McNeill appeared last month to give evidence on progress to date. There has also been a fair bit of press coverage both in the run up to becoming the PIRC (and as part of the coverage of police reform) and since 1 April in particular relation to completed investigations.
If this is not something you are able to do, if you could please let me know, that would be great. As I say, I'm completely new to the world of Wikipedia in terms of the editing side of things, so if you have suggestions for how I can achieve changes to the page without causing trouble, that would be brilliant.
Thanks in advance.
Kirsty Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirstyGordon (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kirsty. I am happy to help you. I can do some research myself but if you have any of the news sources you mention above that would be a good start. --John (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi John, thanks for getting back to me so quickly and great that you're able to help. Some links that might help are:
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-19113374
- http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Complaints-Commissioner-To-Serve-Single-Force_54573.html
- http://www.policeoracle.com/news/New-Police-Complaints-Role-Outlined_55049.html
- http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Scotland-Senior-Complaints-Investigator-Appointed_56442.html
- http://www.policingtoday.co.uk/scots_pcc_impressed_by_police_reform_bill_23081.aspx
- http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/revealed-name-for-country-s-single-force-the-police-service-of-scotland-1-2060759
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/single-fire-and-police-force-plan-published.16505044
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/historic-change-ushers-in-a-new-era-of-crime-fighting.20442003
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/ex-cid-boss-to-investigate-police.19115595
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-police-watchdog-will-be-led-by-former-cid-chief.19593625
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-watchdog-chief-appointed.20166253
- http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/irene-scullion-to-lead-police-complaints-body-1-2784982
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-police-watchdog-launches-recruitment-drive-for-trainees.19646459
- http://www.policingtoday.co.uk/use_of_taser_on_15_year_old_proportionate_81221.aspx
- http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/taser-use-on-15yo-scots-school-pupil-justified-1-2971537
- http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/19/scotland-police-boy-taser-inquiry
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/probe-to-be-launched-into-legal-high-death.21511571
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/police-criticised-after-ex-soldier-lost-leg-in-crash.21872401
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-erred-in-case-of-missing-mother-who-killed-herself.22401434
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/watchdog-police-were-justified-in-using-tasers-on-sword-man-who-threatened-them.1382361633
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/use-of-tasers-during-stand-off-proportionate.22483995
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-must-review-missing-inquiries.22496869
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/agenda.22634699
- http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/assaults-by-officers-claims-at-lowest-for-six-years.22646094
- http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/independent-investigation-when-police-in-fatal-crash-1-2922863
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24201492
- Also non media: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2013/9780111019566
- There are plenty of other press articles if you need them, particularly on thecourier.co.uk, stv.tv, heraldscotland.com, policeoracle.com, bbc.co.uk, dailyrecord.co.uk and other Scottish titles.
- If there is anything else I can do to help supply information please let me know.
- Thanks again KirstyGordon (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. I should have some time to look at this tomorrow. --John (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again John. Just a quick message to let you know that I am away on leave next week in case you need any further information on this in that time. I am around today and tomorrow, otherwise if you contact our Head of Communications on 01698 542900 (reluctant to put names and email addresses on here...). Alternatively I'm back on Monday 25 November. Thanks again for looking into this. - (KirstyGordon (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Sorry I haven't yet had time to properly look into it. I'll try to put a quick fix into place in the next few days, and fix it up properly at the weekend. --John (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries John, appreciate you taking the time at all. - KirstyGordon (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a quick look at this. I will do more on it in the days to come. Thank you for letting me know of the discrepancy. --John (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would you be able to copyedit Crocodilia? LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. --John (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a pleasure. It's a great article; let me know if you need any other work on it. Thanks for asking me. --John (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a charming note on my talk page, but the thanks must really flow in your direction. You have taught me to beware of the siren however, which so often clogs up a sentence unnecessarily and diminishes its impact. I am ashamed to say I attempted to twist your tail when we first engaged in discussion on the point at Alec Douglas-Home, but I am now a convert. (PS: You wouldn't care to comment at the peer review the Wells Cathedral article, by any happy chance?) Tim riley (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was with that in mind that I wanted to thank you, though I couldn't remember the exact article I had a feeling we had argued about it. It meant even more to me that you had changed your mind and that the thanks were not mere sycophancy. You're clearly a great writer and reviewer, it's possible that you were right in Home's case, and I certainly don't bear you any grudge for what you said back then, though on reviewing it I'd say that nether of us explained ourselves particularly well to the other. I'll be happy to look at the peer review when I have time. --John (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done that. I hope you don't regret inviting me to look at it. --John (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Geist, as you probably now know, was a moderately successful academic scientist studying ungulates.
- In retirement it appears he's taken to speculating on wolves. His core idea on topic (that wolves habituated to humans may be more likely to attack than non-habituated wolves) seems intuitively correct.
- But as far as I can tell, he's never done actual science in this regard. His writings on topic seem sort of huffy and polemic, and he's mainly gotten traction on this via elk-hunting groups and cattle management organizations and the like. Still, he does broadly fit definition of "reliable source."
- One thing is, Geist "edited" and secured an obscure publisher, for the truly God-awful Will N. Graves, who as a result, now qualifies as "source" for Wikipedia (and grist for many rabid anti-wolf groups).
- Thing is, there are other sources that are doing actually legitimate science in field (and very broadly, would support Geist's basic idea, although not his craziness). Here I like Mech, among the most widely respected U.S. wolf researchers, who acknowledges some remarkably intense wolf attacks in India, even while expressing caution. Also Linnell, who published a long list of Eurasian wolf attack reports "through the ages," along with an extended discussion about why many of them are of uncertain authenticity. I suspect Linnell "accepted" or at least acknowledged many of these reports to defuse anti-wolf elements and place them in context of actual risk. I think he was moderately successful in context. But his work here is just used to pad "the list."
- I don't think it's reasonable to expect to merge this article. Also, it does appear that there IS an evolving sense among responsible biologists, that wolves actually can, rarely, pose a danger to humans -- especially when humans eliminate their prey and they live in close proximity (India etc.) This emerging consensus, based on science, is changed from that of twenty years ago. Of course, the consensus suggests that rats, squirrels & etc., ad infinitude, are a more serious risk to humans than wolves.
There are at least 3 editors at Wolf Attacks, who are really committed to the "anything goes" theory of sourcing and they have, in my opinion, an agenda that is not commensurate with good editing.
- One of them, Chrisrus, actually said on talk page (only slight paraphrase) that "scientists suppress information on wolf attacks and if only the public understood this" etc. Mario and Graham seem slightly more sophisticated, but I gather their general perspective is similar.
- I just think article would benefit from maybe a section near top, discussing difficulty of assessing historical "reports" of wolf attacks, as well as assessing similar reports from tribal areas of Asia & etc.
- Best would be if article were merged and/or reports acceptable to Wikipedia were limited to those subject to modern science and forensics, but that probably won't happen.
- Your idea that this article is product of WP:SYNTH is technically correct.
76.250.61.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting, thank you. I am not an expert in this field but the sentence in the lead and the long indiscriminate list both seem very unencyclopedic to me. --John (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead sentence in question is contradicted by another and more relevant source; list is demonstrably a product of original research and synthesis. But so are probably ALL lists on Wikipedia & I don't know whether one ought to object on this basis.76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a dreadful-looking article, but we have many of them, sadly. I still think that sentence in the lead has to go. --John (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Miss Jones sang her aria outstandingly, while the choir sang the Hallelujah Chorus with great gusto." Good luck with "while"! I have wimpishly given up on it, confining myself to rounds of rapid fire at any incidence of "whilst". Our American colleagues have pulled me up about the distinction between "which" and "that", which some of the most eminent English writers have been lax about, but our US colleagues are right, for all that. It is a treat to exchange views with someone who relishes words and cares about their use. Happily we have lots of like-minded WP colleagues. (And if, as seems, you've never seen Wells Cathedral, you have a breathtaking treat in store.) – Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately Edinburgh is so far from Wells. I will make it there one day I hope. Re which and that, this is one that Eric taught me. It's a simple enough rule and I don't know how I got through so much of my life without knowing it. I will continue the battle against however, while and (especially) whilst. Unbeknownst is one I had never seen until I started editing here. It combines ugliness, pretentiousness and datedness. Having worked in the States for a few years I know that Americans are not universally taught as we are that "shorter is better" and this often shows on articles. I appreciate the note and I hope if I can ever be of any help to you that you will ask. --John (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, John, I hope you're doing well!
Ian Rose suggested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1 that you might be able to help with some copy editing to improve prose at the FAC article I'm working on, Fuck (film), specifically with regards to improvement of flow.
Or, if you think it's fine as is after I've responded to additional comments at the FAC by users including Wehwalt and Quadell, you could mention that, as well, at the FAC subpage.
Any help or input at this point would be appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a quick look and I think I can definitely improve the flow. I should be able to look at it this evening. --John (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wonderful, thank you very much! Some copy edits for flow if you think you can help would be most appreciated! Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your helpful suggestion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1]. I moved all those alternate titles to a footnote, and also broken up that first sentence in two, as you recommended. I think it looks much better. Keep me posted on those prose changes, I look forward to it, — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a great pleasure and I appreciate being asked. I might not get all that much more done tonight, so I hope you're not in too much of a hurry. It's an interesting article. --John (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no need for more done tonight. But I am going to be traveling with limited Internet access soon, so the sooner the better. But sometime within the next couple or few days should be okay. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll try for another hour later tonight, and should finish tomorrow. --John (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds wonderful, thank you so much!! — Cirt (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up re User Number 57 who I noticed 2 days ago you gave a final warning to, for disruptive edits. Number 57 has gone through reverting a constructive edit to each page from 1868 to 2010 without any explanation. I have just gone through and undone all these reversions.Graemp (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
