User talk:John K

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12

Editing talk pages

Sorry to disturb you, but... I noticed User:PhJ has deleted large chunks of discussion from the talk pages of Trentino-South Tyrol, South Tyrol, Bolzano and Merano. Can he do so unilaterally? Regards, Tridentinus 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask the very same thing... Taalo 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say this is bad form, but the whole dispute has tired me out, and I don't really feel like intervening. john k 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would of told my pal Tridentinus to ask another Admin. Actually, at this point he can delete the entire talk page and replace it with a German discussion if he wants -- it is getting very boring. How is the dissertation writing going by the way? The last six months are usually pretty killer. :\ Taalo 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you were the first official I recognised starting from bottom up. I can surely ask someone else, but... who? Good luck with your dissertation! Tridentinus 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I fwded to Wknight94. He is slightly less annoyed by the T-AA/ST debates. :} Taalo 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

motion to close mediation

hello there,

there was a mediation offer quite a while ago concerning the issue of Trentino-South Tyrol. I am happy to announce that the issue has been discussed, voted upon and settled. However the mediation offer still needs to be officially closed. Please take a minute to visit the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol and put your signature at the bottom if you agree with the decision, thank you. sincerely Gryffindor 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• A very important note. This mediation offer concerned the greater overall naming convention to use in this region, not just the name of the region itself. We came up with a very good compromise for the regional name itself. I for one am still looking forward for Lar to help us out. Taalo 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

French princes

Hello John;

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#French princes revisited. Would you care to comment? Thanks. Charles 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi John;

Since you're an admin, I thought you might know: Has reverting moves been restricted? I find myself unable to undo moves where I would normally be able to do that before. If not, have I accidentally had my privileges revoked? Thanks. Charles 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WWI causes

I of course welcome your involvement - but please no profanities on the talk page, sbandrews (t) 13:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it brings in an unhelpful tone - like you are ridiculing me, I only seek to find a consensus as to what should and should not be present on the page, with the aim of finding the truth. The fact of the matter is that one editer has systematically removed all reference to the railroad and all reference to oil from all articles releating to WWI. Further when this has been questioned on the talk pages editors haave shouted (capitals :)) and ridiculed until objection is quashed. I will provide references, please take a look at my editing record and show me where I have failed to provide references. sbandrews (t) 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

now you have accused me of original research, and I haven't even written a single word - I am just discussing on the talk page - please withdraw the accusation and strike through your earlier unfriendly comments, sbandrews (t) 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a page's Extreme Makeover: Template:S-start/doc

You can find it here. I've also posted a message in the talk page of WikiProject Succession blah blah but it doesn't look like people visit that place often.

I'll be waiting feedback. Waltham 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold Sections

It says quite specifically that it "is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." In this case, the country the person was King/Queen of is as much a part of their name in historiography as their ordinal. The variations, in this case, would be the toss up between X III, King of Y and X III of Y. Because the bolded section refers to, effectively, the legal, or historical, name of the person involved. Michael Sanders 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"In a slightly different form" would imply that the information is all still there, but written differently (e.g. Jeanne d'Arc as opposed to Joan of Arc); whereas, if the country the person was ruler of is omitted, then it is not a 'slightly different form', it is a deliberately and notably different and ambiguous form. Michael Sanders 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't part of the bold section. The manual of style is quite specific that the name should be bolded. Michael Sanders 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider, for example, Henry IV of France. He wasn't simply Henry IV - he was Henry III of Navarre. To write simply Henry IV in the bold confuses the issue. Michael Sanders 00:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your objection appeared to be that it was redundant to say X of France, was King of France. My changes removed that redundancy, and kept in step with the manual. Michael Sanders 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour?

As you have been involved in this little dispute, I would ask that you look at User:Michaelsanders' recent edits. I think his behaviour has been out of line, but I do not know the proper way of dealing with this. Srnec 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Queens

Hallo John, what do think of this situation? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Maybe you can elaborate on Talk:King of the Romans. Could you also give your opinion on my solution of placing "Roman"(linked)-"German King"(linked) in the succession boxes? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lord Reading

He was certainly born that, but apparently he changed his surname at some point (I can't quite work out when), and his descendants certainly seem to use the surname "Rufus Isaacs". Cracroft's lists him as "Rufus Daniel [Isaacs later Rufus Isaacs], 1st Baron Reading later 1st Viscount Reading later 1st Earl of Reading later 1st Marquess of Reading, GCB GCSI GCIE GCVO PC". Proteus (Talk) 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. As long as we don't remove the changed surname entirely I'm quite happy for it to be formatted however you feel best. Proteus (Talk) 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Do you feel that most of the recent edits to this page are sound? Charles 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Diplomatic representatives

See my reply on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Henrietta Anne Stuart

Hello John:
We are having a bit of a discussion about the proper title for this article: Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, Henrietta Anne Stuart, Henrietta Anne of England or whatever; see Talk:Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. I would appreciate your input on this issue. JdH 02:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

James Hepburn

Recently created page on James Hepburn, Bishop of Moray. Previously the page had been a redirect to James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. I did this mostly because it was easiest and nicest, but please tell me if you think there is an issue of primary usage. The bishop is clearly not primary usage. Do you think he should be moved to James Hepburn (bishop) (the usual way of dabbing bishops)? And if so, should the page be redirect a redirect to Bothwell, or the dab page? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I carried that out. Old article is at James Hepburn (bishop), and James Hepburn now redirects to the dab page. Since you have the power, you might move James Hepburn (disambiguation) top James Hepburn. This option was blocked for me. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tudors

Thanks for the correction - I didn't have a chance to research it, just was trying to fix the edits that someone else made which were even less appropriate, to my mind. I actually wondered about this one, but left it in for the moment, assuming someone would come along and remove it if it was not supported by history. So thank you for doing so! DOn't know if you had a chance to look in on Talk - you might want to weigh in there. Tvoz |talk 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agree with leaving off the Anne-Wolsey part until it appears in the series.Tvoz |talk 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• All images, regardless of copyright status require source information - i.e. where the digital image came from: a scan, a website, your photograph - this applies equally to images that are in the public domain because of their age. An image without a source is like a fact without a reference - there is no way to check whether an image is what it says it is. Although it may seem a pain, Wikipedia policy is clear on this (WP:IUP#Rules of thumb). If you don't know where you originally got it from then I guess the next best thing is finding out where the painting is and providing that source information - or finding an alternative electronic source. By the way, I'm not deleting anything, I'm just tagging for a problem, its up to an admin to decide what to do. Madmedea 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please remember to be civil. I have not done anything outside of WP policy. I do not see much point in having an encyclopaedia which is unreferenced - and that includes the images in it. I spend time referencing my additions to articles and ensuring any images I upload are fully described with copyright information and sources. I don't see the problem in tagging an image as lacking sources. I'm currently working, as are other editors, to transfer images that are suitable to Wikimedia commons, to do this they have to have a source tag - as they should on Wikipedia. So by asking a contributor to state their source this facilitates this process and removes images from wikipedia (by transferring them to commons) which don't need to be there. Madmedea 00:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• The policy is available at WP:IUP which states "Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer" and "It is important, even in the case of public domain images, to specify the source of the image. However, if the public domain status of the image is not in doubt, such an image should not be deleted simply because the source is not specified". Remember, I'm not deleting anything, but I used the tag that I thought was most appropriate from Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace to highlight that the image did not have a source. I did not use a speedy delete tag!. Madmedea 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• User:Mangojuice has just edited the image policy to state that that PD images won't be deleted for lack of sources - which as an Admin I guess they have the right to do - and they're the ones who review the images! I'm sorry about the bot message - when I realised that it wasn't going down well I started to add my own explanation to the bottom which elicited more positive responses. And honestly, I don't have a vendetta or anything, I just want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be - and for me referencing is really important (just look at my List of Pre-Raphaelite paintings which is a work in progress). I think we need a new tag specifically for PD images to request sources... one that isn't so confrontational! For now I think if I spot something I'll used the mainspace {{unreferenced}} tag even if it is the wrong one. Madmedea 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Can you check the sources that I added for Abkhazia in Talk:List of sovereign states and let me know if they are any good? Apparently not because some people keep deleting it and I don't want to add anything that is not supported by sources. I spent a lot of my own time on finding these sources and I can try to find sources for other things that people might need, but I won't waste my time if no one takes them seriously.--Britlawyer 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If they don't care what the sources say then what are we even doing here? Ask for mediation and I'll participate.--Britlawyer 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Bratislava"

Dear John,

Since you are both an academic in the field of European history and an active contributor to Wikipedia, I wonder if you could entertain an idea with me.

I've seen numerous claims (both here and in print) that the origin and/or reason for adoption of the name Bratislava is shrouded in mystery. Since the name was only adopted in 1919, at the close of WWI, I find it hard to believe that such a mystery can't be pierced.

Of course, Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, which is why I'm asking you to look at the question with me along a different line, if you have the time and inclination. Together I believe that we should be able to answer the questions:

• Is the origin of the name really a mystery? and, if not,
• What *is* its origin?

I would be very interested to collaborate with you on researching the question. As I'm situated in Bratislava, and both have personal connections with people working in the Slovak National Archives and work full-time as a Slovak to English translator, I could lend research and translation support on this end. Your academic connections in the US should serve to close the gaps in access to material that isn't available to me, as well as make any potential resulting paper publishable.

Please let me know (on talk or in email) if you're interested in such a collaboration.

MikeGogulski 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John, I answered your message on my talk page, so I stopped by your talk page in quite a different case. There is a new user account, Olivierdb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently founded only to reinsert your old reverted edit of Bratislava. Please see Talk:Bratislava#Sockpuppetry.3F. Obviously, I do not believe it is your sockpuppet, but I would love to hear your opinion. We have had many problems with disruptive sockpuppetry in articles about Slovakia (caused by VinceB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and this seems to be a purely disruptive account founded by someone from Wikipedia, not an account of a newbie. It does not look very good when you are engaged in a discussion while your opinion is being pushed by a suspicious account. Tankred 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Britlawyer

Hi, thanks for your note, I've replied on my page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against you

In addition to the personal attack where your account was accused of abusive sockpuppetry here [1] to which you replied here [2] your edits(which I resotred) are now called "POV" "change the names of Slovak cities into a non-Slovak version" [3] and also "disruptive" and "not real contributions."(same place). This happened after you made an edit to Bratislava IMO improving the article. I feel that your edits were NPOV and improving the encylopedia this is why I decided to endorse your edit and restored it. These accusations of your edit being called "POV", "disruptive", and others I feel are only the start. You should watch out for more personal attacks from the same editors because as far as I can tell they are way too passionate about their edits and you made an edit they did not like. Olivierdb 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is non sense. John, those difflinks are not about you, but about User:Olivierdb, plausibly a "bad hand" sockpuppet of someone from Wikipedia (or, quite likely, a banned user). For some unknown reason, he/she has tried to sabotage our common effort to reach consensus on Talk:Bratislava by reverts of the article, by various accusation posted at WP:ANI, and now by this. Tankred 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes all the diffs are about edits made by John. What I did was I merely endorsed and restored an edit he made, that was never my edit to begin with. Now this restoration of your edit John is dubbed as "sabotage" above. Also an attack took place earlier to which the response was [4]. Diffs show that these attacks happened. Olivierdb 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)