Jump to content

User talk:John

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UnsourcedBlanker222 (talk | contribs) at 12:51, 18 July 2012 (→‎What). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)


Daniel Day-Lewis

John, I hope you'll understand that I reverted your recent proposed edits to the article on Daniel Day-Lewis with the suggestion it be proposed on the talk page first. We've just gotten to the point that the discussion is getting somewhere in the neighborhood of productive, and we might (gasp!) be heading toward something like consensus. Ordinarily, I'd probably have left what you did alone, but under the circumstances, and particularly with the related ANI still active, I felt it might be a better move to encourage you to start on the talk page. I also didn't know you are an admin when I made the revert, so please factor that in. Anyway, fingers crossed I didn't create a bigger problem than I solved. --Drmargi (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Reverting good changes is always an extremely inadvisable thing to do. --John (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the time, I'd agree with you. In this particular set of circumstances, I felt it muddied the water and potentially re-inflamed the edit war, which is why I a. suggested you propose the change on the talk page and b. left a message here. --Drmargi (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Reverting a good change for no reason is always wrong. I think what you did was both unhelpful and regrettable. You talk about edit-wars, and about inflaming other editors; what you did is exactly the sort of thing which encourages edit-warring and inflames other editors. WP:DRNC is an interesting essay that may help you to understand why what you did was wrong. --John (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney FAC

The McCartney article is much improved since your oppose !vote at the FAC one month ago. If you have the time, perhaps consider taking another look. ~ GabeMc (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support John, it was really well timed. Don't worry, the article will likely be at FAC for a few more weeks, so I am confident that any remaining issues will be resolved by then. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recent edits, nice work, I appreciate your help! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 12:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome; it's been a real pleasure to work with you. --John (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber, etc

Before you get too deep into your copyedit, I wanted to point out that I drafted up this morning a version that did a lot of what you're probably in the process of doing now on the article. See Talk:@justinbieber_(account)#Proposed_rewrite for links to my draft. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. You are a better man than I, for doing that. I don't think I would have had the stamina to finish in any case. --John (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I may or may not have sacrificed a few years' worth of will to live in the process, but it needed to be done so my eyes could stop bleeding :D A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that this article may end up being quite a good one if it can be properly copyedited. I really will take a look at what you are doing and I'm sure there will be a barnstar or something in it for you when all is done. Well done and thank you again. --John (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was looking at your draft. Do you mind if I edit it? --John (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't at all mind in principle, though it does concern me that multiple editors on the sandox draft may get us into the sticky situation of having to do an ugly histmerge back into the article when it's done. Not sure what the best solution is for that is - we could always kludge the entire draft into the article at the end with an edit summary of "contributed to by users X, Y, and Z", if people aren't too concerned about attribution for who, exactly, did what. I'd say the best solution would be to just slide it over into the article now for others to work on, but I'm concerned that Hawkeye and LauraHale haven't weighed in on the acceptability of the draft and might revert it. In any case, you're free to edit it in my sandbox for now, as long as you're ok with helping me figure out how to untangle histories when all is said and done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good answer. In the circs I will hold off for now. Keep up the good work. I might have a look tomorrow. --John (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a wee hack at it. I think this is the way forward though. --John (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Given the time constraints that AfD is imposing on us, I'm inclined to send it live in a few hours if no one has disagreed with it by that point. How much do you care about preserving the exact edit history of the sandbox space? I think that under our copying-within-wikipedia terms, we can get away with a copy-and-paste of the draft into the article, with just an edit summary of "condense set of rewrites done by user:John and user:Fluffernutter" or something, rather than a histmerge, if that's acceptable to you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I went ahead and did it that way, to try to give AfD as much time as possible to consider the new version. Hope I didn't step on your toes - let me know if it's a problem and we can go back and try to sort the exact history. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I know what I took out and changed and I don't need specific credit for each copyedit. It looks a lot better now, well done us! --John (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to both for helping to build an encyclopaedia. It's encouraging to see the "fix" mentality in action (as opposed to the "tear-down" mentality it's been my unhappy misfortune to witness lately). Cheers. GFHandel ♬  20:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for noticing, GFHandel. Funny thing is now I have worked on it I think it should be kept. Often the case when you get stuck into a topic. Suppose I should go change my comment at AfD. --John (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I try to look at this situation from outside my own brain, it seems completely hilarious that somehow I'm trying to get this pop culture thing, which I don't care about and don't find all that interesting, kept. Especially when a few days ago I was joking with a friend about how silly those "on Twitter" articles were. But now that I've put in the work, and cleaned it up, and stared at it for hours on end...either the abyss has begun gazing into me, or the topic ain't THAT bad after all. Or else I've just finally cracked up! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the same way about it. It has been a pleasure to work with you, especially as you are so well-read. I'm a great fan of Nietzsche myself. --John (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks a lot for your work on Justin Bieber on Twitter! Arcandam (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Fluffer did all the work, I just made some trims. --John (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got a chuckle...

... out of the old lady story at ANI, just wanted you to know. I've told it often.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nice to think something light can come out of all that mess. --John (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oranjblud a.k.a. User:Mddkpp

Greetings, since you have delt with this user before with WP:NPA and civility issues, as well as sockpuppetry issues, it appears that there is still a problem, despite your previous leniency. You had a discussion concerning these issues on 8 March 2012 on Oranjblud's talkpage. I do not come to you lightly. At first, I was WP:AGF with him/her, since I wasn't paying close attention. I had assumed that he's new, he hadn't learned the rules. I also didn't want to WP:BITE, so I really took this behavior in stride. Now, that I carefully read Oranjeblud talkpage, I see that he/she has had issues before with other accounts. In fact, he was banned for this behavior on another account, so he created Oranjblud. So, here I am to bring this to your attention.

Oranjblud PRODed 42 articles involving railfan magazines in about 60 minutes on July 4th, essentially gutting an entire genre of articles. I was very concerned when I saw this, since it was such a large number of articles... as an AfD/PROD patroller, it seems difficult to process the good PRODs from the bad. And yes, some of those are good PRODs. FIY, I don't care about railfan stuff at all, actually, so I have no dog in that fight. I just want to see Wikipedia be good and do my part.

Now, some of those PRODs I disagreed with, and I removed the PROD tag (and also provided an explanation in the edit summary), and Oranjblud promptly began acting in an uncivil manner, posting on my talkpage:

Dif #1: "Thanks for wasting my time"

Other users also felt his wrath when they expressed their concerns, such as User;RedRose64, who is also an administrator:

Dif #2: "go fuck yourself"

Also, I voted Weak keep in an AfD, and I got this:

Dif #3: "WTF"

These experiences aren't just related to me, the lack of civility can be seen here in other discussions:

Like I said, want to bring this to your attention, since you were the last admin to have any official dealings with him. Oranjblud does seem to make good edits, but his attitude leaves a lot to be desired when dealing with other editors and trying to reach concensus. I leave this to your wisdom.

Roodog2k (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Warned, thank you for the heads-up, and obviously let me know if this recurs. --John (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally as a watcher of some of the Australian magazine articles - (proddable or not) I believe Roodog and Redrose are far too AGF, and I really think such behaviour shows something worth further attention than just gentle masses of words SatuSuro 00:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird accidental rollback

After I posted the above, I looked at your user contributions to see what you've been working on.

Somehow, I accidently rolled-back two edits of yours. I'm not sure how that happened, it was unintentional and I rolled-back my rollback. So, my apologies. No harm done, I hope. All was as you left it.

Roodog2k (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --John (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you

The Admin's Barnstar
For consistently using calm reasoning and compassion instead of the block button when possible, always assuming good faith, and understanding that good people do make mistakes once in a while. You are an excellent example of adminship. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was extremely kind of you. --John (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I commented. --John (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your change: Atomic reactor to Nuclear Reactor

John, Please read my talk section on Parkinson's Law that you changed a few minutes after I made my edits. The talk section discusses why I made the changes. I wrote "Also, the writers talk about nuclear power plants, whereas Parkinson writes about "the Atomic Reactor". I have made the correction. People used different language in 1957 than they do today. If one is referring to a 1957 book (which, for example, talks about asbestos roofing which now is considered a hazardous material), it is appropriate to use the 1957 language. In fact, an atomic reactor may be referring to different physics than that of a nuclear power plant. Since we do not know, it's best to quote the book, rather than make presumptions."

You did not seem to have read that comment before making your change, or if you did, it would be courteous to comment.

Please revert the "atomic reactor" that you changed to nuclear reactor. If you want to add quotes, fine, but you are wrong to change the terminology just because language has changed since 1957 when the book was written.

The article is about a 1957 book. While our thinking may have changed since then, it is wrong to change the author's thinking after he wrote what he thought in 1957. My source is the actual book, which it appears few Wikipedia experts have actually read. ClassicalScholar 11:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

Thank you, I have replied in talk. --John (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks John! You assisted in various ways on the Paul McCartney FAC. Thank you! Without your help and support McCartney would not be a FA today! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is very kind. You did far more of the work than I did. Congratulations on the promotion. --John (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Paul and Linda

Could you look at this?--andreasegde (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I suggest you back off. I also noticed this. If it becomes a user conduct issue, other people will need to be brought in. --John (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The/the" request for formal mediation

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast

Can you restore Belfast move (sysop)-protection? Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

John, if you're on, can you protect Scotland article from sustained attacks at the mo'. Thanks 81.154.110.11 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, for now. I see no sustained attacks that normal editing cannot deal with. Let me know if it gets worse. --John (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J

Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles.

Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melford Stevenson

I don't know if this is something you might be interested in, but someone recently "challenged" me to do something with Melford Stevenson, perhaps on the basis that I would have nothing in common with a High Court judge known for the severity of his sentencing. Yet I warmed to Stevenson as I started to dig in. There was far more to do than I'd imagined on a first reading though, including having to fix the {{LondonGazette}} template at the cost of having gained yet another mortal enemy, but I think the article's starting to take shape now. The citations are still a bit higgledty-piggledty in terms of their layout, and I haven't yet checked all of them, but I'd be interested in any observations you might have with a view to taking this to GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting article. It would be fun to work on it with you. --John (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. What do you think of it so far? Malleus Fatuorum 13:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love it. I will have a think about some more focused suggestions to improve it later this evening. --John (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about done content-wise I think, but there are still a couple of missing page numbers to sort out. How could anyone not have a sneaking admiration for a judge who advocates "You sentence off the top of your head. If the man's a shit, down he goes. If there's something to be said for him, you do your best not to put him inside." Apart from all the work I've had to put into what looked at first blush like a relatively easy job, including having to update the {{LondonGazette}} template to make it compatible with my preferred {{citation}} template, I've been surprised how poor our coverage of figures like Stevenson is. I came across another High Court judge earlier, Sir Wintringham Stable, who although he has an entry in the ODNB doesn't have an article here, whereas occasional Eastenders character Poppy Meadow does. Don't get me wrong though, I've been working for some time now to help Poppy Meadow get through FAC, so I'm not being elitist or snobbish. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you are aware that "You sentence off the top of your head. If the man's a shit, down he goes. If there's something to be said for him, you do your best not to put him inside." could pretty much sum up every single Arbcom member's attitude to you? What makes legal systems (both in reality and in the Wiki-bubble) better off without the Stevensons and Sandsteins, is the pure arbitrariness of a system in which "justice" is based entirely on whether the guy wearing the black cap thinks the accused is "a shit".
BTW you might want to ask Ironholds and Carcharoth to have a look at Melford as well; if you're planning to take him through GAC/FAC they're the ones most likely to raise issues, so better to resolve any potential sticking points beforehand. 78.146.201.142 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Malleus for all your hard work. 78.146, I like Sandstein and I'd be grateful if you could refrain from attacking him (or anyone else) on my talk page. --John (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Assistance

Good to see your edits on the page of Blair, i am having a issue with a person over here, who's making attempts to change the basic information on a page Libyan–Egyptian War‎, he's denying the reliable sources like the newspaper of the day when event happened, then the book 'Dictionary of Wars', and adding his own theory by adding source which isn't supporting his addition. Have a look. Thanks Clarificationgiven (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What

You reverted all my edits in my last account as "unsourced" and left my with "do it again and you will be blocked"UnsourcedBlanker222 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of that account, please? --John (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I tell you that?--UnsourcedBlanker222 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John&oldid=502953343"