This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisGualtieri(talk | contribs) at 17:53, 20 September 2014(→Gage page: EEng adding invalid references (2) to bolster a new claim not found in said sources.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:53, 20 September 2014 by ChrisGualtieri(talk | contribs)(→Gage page: EEng adding invalid references (2) to bolster a new claim not found in said sources.)
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
It's time to make a stand against the arrogant and incompetent Wikimedia Foundation and its complete disregard for those of us who actually build this encyclopedia. Their salaries are paid on the back of our unpaid work, therefore in line with some others I've decided to withdraw my labour every Monday until things change. And if they don't, I'll be extending the length of my strike. I encourage everyone to join me.
Personal attacks on my Talk Page
Hi John! It seems QuackGuru is on a personal defamation campaign now. He attacked against me on my Talk Page[1] accusing me of "following him to other articles" (WP:HOUND). He has made the same accusation several times before[2][3][4][5], but has never provided any evidence even despite of my requests. Doesn't this fall under "personal attack"? WP:WIAPA goes about the description of personal attacks as follows: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."
He also posted lengthy nine paragraphs where he is scrutinizing my edit history. The most interesting is that he is talking about me in 3rd person, so it's obvious that he didn't address it to me but made the post in defamation purposes, or as a "wall of shame" as WP:HUSH puts it.
WP:HUSH says the following about user space harassment:
User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.
I am bringing this to your attention because you are already familiar with the editor and I trust your sense of judgement. I hope you have the time to take a look! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I looked at this and can see two sides to it. Is User:QuackGuru reverting your edits, or is he just making allegations about you on user talk pages? QG, didn't you agree to mentorship at some point? What's going on? User:Drmies, as my junior colleague, what do you think about the matter? Had you seen that page before, Drmies? Isn't it funny that we are almost neck and neck? --John (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You passed me again, John? Don't you have better things to do than racking up useless edits? And what are we looking at precisely? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, sorry if I was a bit unclear. I was pertaining to QuackGuru's lengthy post on my Talk Page[6] (Background information) which clearly shows that QuackGuru wasn't addressing his post to me since he is talking about me in 3rd person. It's quite obvious that he is using my user Talk Page as a wall of shame as described in WP:HUSH. The edit you were pertaining has nothing to do with that, and the edit was made under the consensus achieved at the Acupuncture Talk Page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was User:Kww. Kevin, didn't you offer to help QuackGuru? Forgive me if I was wrong in that recollection. If I was right, what do you think of this? --John (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a filter, not so much a mentor. QG has agreed not to take things to notice boards without my agreement. I find that I approve about one request in four. As for these hounding/stalking complaints, I'll go have a little chat. It looks like he has gone a bit past the line again. I'd have to see very specific evidence from either editor on those accusations, because they tend to have a strong topic overlap: it would be hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.—Kww(talk) 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be hard to prove any sort of following was going on in either direction given their overlapping areas of interest. Thanks for anything you can do. --John (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kww, thanks for having a word with QuackGuru. I hope he understands this time "the soft way", otherwise I have to resort to tougher means. The beginning doesn't seem too promising though: he merely archived[7] your post on his Talk Page without giving any sings of understanding, and now as he has returned to Talk:Acupuncture, he is interpreting the comment by DrMies[8] in such a way that I'd somewhat the problem here. Just by taking look at his post here at Acupunture (talk), it doesn't seem he has understood his actions.
And what does that diff contain? Surprise surprise, the accusations originally made on my Talk Page. Now just brought to the article Talk Page under "I did discuss the problems". @John: and @Kww:, it is obvious that QuackGuru keeps going on with battleground mentality. As a fair compromise, I'd suggest an official administrative warning to him. I am optimistic that it will teach him a lesson. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading more carefully, WP:WIAPA clearly says that: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Like Kww already stated to QuackGuru at his Talk Page[9], his accusations do not have any solid foundation. That is already a clear warning, and if he keeps up the same behavior, more severe means must take place. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've also been subjected to this same treatment by User: QuackGuru. Since engaging with this editor, I have done nothing but be nice and civil towards QuackGuru and yet he has baited me to the point where I have gotten warnings for nothing, and now has directly and indirectly covered my talk page in slime, turning it into a wall of shame as well. I'm long on patience, but this user has tested me beyond my limits. LesVegas (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, John.
I have long been interested in your talk page as a place where wise insights might sometimes be found, much as I have stalked the talk pages of other stalwarts such as RHaworth.
One appoach that I adopted was the use of the edit summary "kt" when removing useless hand-waving or otherwise unproductive messages. It is, after all, my talk page - or indeed yours, on the many occasions you have used that edit summary.
Being thus focused on the edit summary's purpose, I did not spend a huge amount of time investigating its meaning. I thought it was the first of these two;
"Keep together" - this is a discussion moved to my talk page from an article or policy or noticeboard talk page, it really has no place here, so take it back to that other place
"Keep talking" - [10][11] a younger editor tells me this sarcastic riposte is what it means
Anyway, presumably it means different things to different people, but, having used it for so long based on your usage, I wanted to ask - what do you use it to mean?
It's option 1; keep together. Per my talk page header, conversations started here continue here, and those started elsewhere stay there. Otherwise conversations become needlessly fragmented. --John (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Town vs City qustion. (Brittish English)
Hello John! I've assumed You live in the UK or Ireland possibly (Please foregive me if I'm wrong and correct me). Through other articles, I have found out very little about the difference [with the exception of Scotland]. My question is - When do You find it proper to use the terms "City" respectively "Town" in a foregin nation, like Sweden. I've got the impression that a "Town" has perhaps from around 15.000 to 50.000 inhabitants, while "City" is a better choice if the settlement has around 100.000 inhabitants or more. I'm only asking for Your opinion and as if the settlements would have been British instead , unless You have a more detailed knowledge of the matter and cares for sharing it.(Swedish language is lacking atleast one word here, I think. As the Swedish "stad" takes no concideration of size). If such matters are not the least interesting to You , then I appologize. Boeing720 (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. According to our article on city, the term is used differently in different parts of the world. In the UK it is a status conferred on a settlement by the Queen. It is only awarded to settlements over about 100,000 population. Sometimes people also use an older definition, whereby a settlement with a cathedral was regarded as a city. This is falling out of use. In the United States there is no such rule and any settlement may call itself a city. Thus there are cities over there with half a dozen inhabitants. The distinction between village and town is less clear cut. I hope that helps. I live in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the way. --John (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Boeing720, we've got the exactly same thing with Finnish language. We've got two words: "kylä" for a village (swe. by) and "kaupunki" for the Swedish "stad". We don't really make any distinction between a town and a city in our vocabulary, but I think the limit for being called "a city" here in Finland is 10,000 inhabitants (LOL!). Everything under 10,000 is still considered "a village". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of You. Actually, Jayaguru-Shishya, in Sweden there was three "settlement sizes" with names "by" (village), "köping" (larger village) and "stad" (town or city), but since the 60's or 70's all settlements with 200+ inhabitants are referred to as "tätort". A word that never has been much used in common parlance though. The 'middle size' "köping" has not been used in speach as long as I can remember, but people still uses "by" and "stad". (interesting may be f.i. Båstad "Bå-stad", which suggests it would be a "stad", but it was a "köping"! 'on paper') Since this is in English, in my opinion, we ought to follow the British style, perhaps being a little more generous (for instance if the municipality exceeds 100.000 ?). But down to 10,000 feels too generous, and infact my home town Landskrona (with 30,000+ in the settlement and 40,000+ in its municipality) also feels too little to label as city, I think. But some other users do not agree. Hence my question. There really should be some WP-rule about it, I also think. By the way, the word cathedral ("katedral") exists in Swedish language, but is mainly used for non-Swedish large church-buildings. Is a cathedral a church where a Bishop resides, or is it related to size only ? I have not yet visited Scotland, I'm sad to admit, but we both lives at around the 55-56th latitude - however I guess You do not have much snow in the Scotish capital ? A very unpleasant type of precipitation, in my mind. (: No offence to Finland, further north in Sweden snow is apparently connected to positive feelings. However where I live, people cycles all year, golfers (like my dad) becomes sour and unpleasant to deal with and there isn't much else to do except waiting for those nice mild south-western Atlantic winds that makes things normal again. :) Boeing720 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't help seeing this while discussing recent disputes. Please note hat tätort is a term used for demographic purposes only and has no relevance as an official administrative term.
Today, Sweden has only counties (län) and municipalities (kommuner). Köping and stad were two classifications of Swedish municipalities before they were all standardized in c. 1970. A few municipalities actually retain the traditional stad ín their "official names" while their governing bodies are all standardized in Swedish. So it's Solna stad and Järfälla kommun, but both are governed by a kommunfullmäktige ("municipal council") and administrated by a kommunstyrelse ("municipal executive board").
Also couldn't help seeing the discussion. In German, we have two fractions, one is Project:Germany, saying that a city has to have a minimum of 100.000 inhabitants (in German: Großstadt), others saying that a city is a unit that governs itself independently, related to what is in German Stadtrechte, but here Town privileges. Discussion on the talk of Weimar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have the exact same word in Swedish: storstad (stor = groß). Entirely unofficial and subjective, though. Sounds to me like Project Germany should try to fall back on official terminology...
The Phineas Gage article is being hampered by EEng more and more it seems. He's reverted the map issue (a debatable and esoteric issue) and reverted my edits to make the images licensing and details accessible.[12] He has now started ref bombing the text into an unreadable state. I think the entire article should be rewritten from scratch in a sandbox or in the draft article space so that consensus can be made to outright replace the article. It may be the best way to resolve all the issues at this point, it is not WP:TNT, but it would be close enough to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is how the article will get improved. It seems silly to have to work around a problematic editor to this extent. Let's see if we can get a topic ban, as that would be preferable. Failing that, ok. --John (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EEng should be topic banned out of COI concerns. EEng self discloses on his user page that he is Lena and that means EEng (Lena) and Macmillan are working together. Should I take it back to COIN because EEng has had years of working directly with Macmillan, is referenced in numerous sources as Macmillan's co-author, aide, collaborator and such. The article is dominated by Macmillan and Lena citations, and is authored by EEng the dominate POV. It is entirely reasonable to believe that EEng is purposely controlling the article and adding to it because it is getting numerous citations and has been used as an outright soapbox in the past to further their research. WP:EXTERNALREL specifically notes academic-based COIs and I think I need to formulate this in a nice sentence if I do go to COIN. Any ideas? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is a COI in his editing the page. That doesn't necessarily rule him out from editing it but it is a red flag. The draft idea is maybe a good one. I don't have much time at the moment to actually work on it but I can maybe help out a wee bit. --John (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>Thanks alot Chris for pinging me about this.</sarcasm> Since he edited my text on his talk page, I hadn't seen anything since. I don't have his talk page or Gage on my watchlist. I'm sure he has said nothing but love and high praise. I thought I'd leave a message here to say maybe people smarter than us (well, atleast me) could help. When it comes to academics, Drmies and DGG are the best ones around. Bgwhite (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that I have any special expertise. I know the general WP that one shouldn't cite one's own work without prior consensus on the talk p., and this probably also includes to any project on which one is a close co-worker. Looking at at them the same way as any other editor here, I think the many quotes to Macmillan's book are appropriate; the quotes of his website are not--I'd rather see it as an external reference. I also know the WP principle that our articles are meant to be accessible to a reader; while there is a place for non-bibliographic notes, this article seems to me as an ordinary reader to use them to extraordinary excess. But none of this has anything special to do with academe. The problem would be the same no matter what the subject, and also the same if the references were to non-academic literature. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: + John - The matter is seemingly simple at its core. EEng is editing a page that is dominated by citations to himself and his co-author. I was told to bring it back to WP:COIN because it persisted, but WP:EXTERNALREL does highlight this particular form of conflict of interest. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it is possible that they are un fact the leading modern sources for the subject. It is of course up to us to evaluate this, not for the author/coauthor to push for their inclusionl they can only suggest. I see from Worldcat, that the only extensive modern book devoted to Gage is Macmillan's An odd kind of fame 562pp. present in 822 libraries, published by MIT Press, an academic press with a particularly strong record in neuroscience. Fleischman's Phineas Gage, found in over 1600 libraries, is even more widely held, but it's only 86 pp. long and published by Houghton-Mifflen, a reputable trade publisher by not an academic publisher; Worldcat lists it as designed for high schools. Many other books discuss him, for example Damasio's Descartes' error', a very widely held book, present in 1750 libraries, but by a general trade publisher--and it devote only about 1/3 of the 312 pp. to him. Parker's bio of him is for children. Looking at Google Scholar, D'Aasio's article in Science is very widely cited (1090 times) and in a scientific journal of the highest prestige. Macmillan's book is cited 188 ties. I conclude from this that Macmillan's book is the most important secondary modern principal source, unless there are reliable review sources to be found that consider it inadequate. (This i s not a personal judgement: I have not read the book and in any case I am no authority in this subject to be making any such judgements based on content. But I can interpret citation data--which may lack nuances, but has the advantage of being entirely based upon objective quantifiable data. I regrat EE tried to introduce it hte way way it did, but it would appear its use as the major secondary source for the article is justified. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: - EEng asserts that Fleischman is an elementary school/children's book and is a not a reliable source on that ground, despite the work being peer reviewed. Descartes' error has several issues that EEng will all be too happy to point out, but Macmillan's book does attack the other scholars as EEng has on the article. However, Macmillan's book is indeed the best (even if outdated) - but speculation should still be noted as such. Key is the fact that several great errors are present and those should be noted, but EEng will not have any of that. Case in point - On page 108 Macmillan states Gages date of death with a specific cited source. I updated the date on the article and EEng became irate because this is in fact false. No date exists and Macmillan squirreled this away on the website.[13] Also, a family genealogy with no sources is reprinted and taken to much effect and without proper context. Macmillan's ability to take liberty with the matter also results in another error of logic on the page. Filling in the "36 year" and blank columns as "0 Months and 0 Days" implying Gage died on his birthday. Macmillan's text is riddled with such things and EEng has muddied the matter such that the article is as poorly detailed as it is written. Given the example provided and the great error and liberty taken by Macmillan, all in the same page, is it fair to be concerned about the work and his colleague's dominance of the page? I believe so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John - do you happen to have Macmillan's text on hand? If the decision to re-make the article gains support, I'd like to have another editor double check my work and highlight additional concerns I may miss. I've actually conducted some of my own groundbreaking research in the past months in a special field and I find that I work best with others. I'm keeping mum on the details of my research, but 1870s accounts are as flawed as modern writings of so-called journalists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly, each time I check the Gage page - the more issues I find. I - and others - were likely aware of Gage's railroad experience. Hence why I pressed hard on Macmillan 2000 as being naked speculation about how he came to acquire such skill. It seems EEng is again making statements not backed by the text.[14] Williams merely notes the Hudson River railway (page 42, 2nd paragraph). And the "Unraveling the myth" does not mention Cortlandt Town either. EEng is either concealing the correction information with invalid references or simply knows nothing about that railroad. Either way, EEng has again unquestioningly put forth information with citations that he knowingly cited which does not contain said information. I'm not going to be dealing with EEng anymore - but I thought it best to let you know such issues continue to be inserted into the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All well here Drmies. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Hang in there, they say it gets easier, though I am not entirely convinced. --John (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My five year old still occasionally needs comfort in the middle of the night. But far less frequently than when she was two. My advice is to try to enjoy every day as it will not come again. Childhood is brief (though it does not always seem that way to the child or the parents) and you will miss it when it is gone. I'm not sure how much help you will find that but it is as close as I have found to good advice on the matter. Best, --John (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Women writers Invitation
Hello John! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
Hi John – as you may remember from earlier conversations, this is the oldest remaining FA not to have been TFA - promoted August 2004. You did a bit of work on it a couple of months ago - do you think it's usable in its current condition or is it closer to FAR territory? If it helps, the next open TFA date is about 30 days away so if you think it could scrape by, you (and others, I hope!) would have a month to work on it. (And if as TFA-day approached you were unhappy with the quality, I could easily swap it for something else.) Yours, BencherliteTalk21:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing that on TV when I was a kid, or I suppose it could have been a later repeat. Scared me to death, almost as much as the scene in Salem's Lot in which the newly created vampire floats up to his brother's bedroom window and tap tap taps to be allowed in. Makes me shiver even to think of it now. EricCorbett21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it on TV too, and I also had an old Penguin edition of the script. Wonder where it is now. Eric, I was actually thinking of asking you to help. Would you be interested? I'll pass on 70% of Bencherlite's fee, to reflect the workshare we usually end up with on our joint projects. I haven't looked at this article again yet but if I recall correctly it might need a major nip and tuck to pass muster for TFA. What do you say? Please? --John (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news! You're making me feel guilty though because I had intended to join your go-slow, but when yesterday came around I forgot and made a few edits. What does that say about me? The good news is having revisited the article it isn't badly written. My concern was on sourcing; an awful lot of the article seems to be sourced to the DVD sleeve notes. What do you think? --John (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the article has a tendency to drift off topic a little, especially when talking about the subsequent careers of the cast members – why is that relevant? Our biggest problem though I think is that imdb is being used a source, that just won't wash these days. EricCorbett14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I suspect that there's some more material about QatP from the last ten years that needs a look, to see if it adds anything e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (from the first two pages alone of a Google Books search). But you didn't sign up for a major rewrite, just a spit and polish to try and get it through TFA on a wing and prayer, and that's not going to work I think. Perhaps the answer is for either or both of you to leave some comments on the article's problems on the talk page as a prelude to a nomination at FAR, then I can get it off the "yet to appear at TFA" list. Just be grateful I didn't ask either of you to look at Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway, the second-oldest remaining FA yet to be TFA (March 2005!) BencherliteTalk16:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be up for a rewrite, but maybe not in the timescale we are talking about. Will take these questions to article talk as per your suggestion. --John (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The world of FAC has certainly changed, that's for sure. Like you, I think we might struggle to get this up to current FA standards in the next three weeks or so, but I've seen it done before. EricCorbett18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that the next open TFA date was in a month, I didn't mean that it had to run next month. It was a bit of an incentive/challenge - I just meant that if it was close to being acceptable then the next open date would leave a month for work to be done in it. However, if it's doable but in a long timescale, that's great too. If it's not really doable, or you'd rather spend your time on other things, then I completely understand. It's the most extreme example of an FA in limbo (not fit for TFA but no-one's taken it to FAR) and it would be nice to regularise the position, one way or t'other. Anyway, thanks to you both for taking a look. BencherliteTalk18:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we can save this from FAR John, but it's going to need quite a bit of work. My strategy so far has been to trim and tidy up what's already there, before looking at the larger overall picture of what ought to be there, and of course sourcing. I think it's starting to look tighter already, but it's early days yet. EricCorbett18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for what's missing, certainly, but it might be a good idea to hang fire for now looking for sources to replace IMDB and the DVD notes until we're more sure of what it is of the current material that we want to keep. EricCorbett18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... actually, I think we're about there now, so let's get looking for some good sources. I've done quite a bit of work on the Plot section, and as I think I'm just about done there now I'd be interested to hear what you think. I don't know about you, but I often don't fully understand what a film's about until I've read a good article on it. It never occurred to me until just a few hours ago, for instance, that the drill operator was himself telekinetically causing all those objects in that iconic scene in which he's running from the pit to swirl around him. EricCorbett20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear now that Pixley's viewing notes are just fine as a reliable source. The potential problem we have now though is to provide the relevant page numbers, since it's a reasonably sized booklet of 48 pages or so I believe. EricCorbett17:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll gladly bow to your expertise on the validity of this source. I'll probably comment further at article talk. It may not be tonight. --John (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do like to call a spade a fucking shovel, if that's what you mean. But I'm also a fan of trying to get the sense across using as few words as possible, kind of a Zen thing I suppose. Maybe I picked that up from reading James Joyce, or perhaps Hemingway? Basically I read too much as a kid. EricCorbett20:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and my changes 15th September in this Scania article. (about Scanian media mainly being owned and ruled by Stockholm - and a comparision with the same in Denmark) Even if he dislikes my edits, and even if he would be 100% correct and I 100% wrong (which I'm not, in my opinion), there is no call for him to declare me as a "Scanian separatist", and most certainly not to use that as a reason to expell me from English Wikipedia. (Scanian history differs though from Swedish until in sometime in the 19th Century).
It all started with User talk:Peter Isotalo wanted to ban all articles in "333 Årsboken" as a source, The 333 Year book, written in 1991, only assembled by "Foundation Scanian Future" , "SSF" 333 years after Treaty of Roskilde. Which to my knowledge never before questioned. I know not more about the SSF-foundation but what is stated at www.scania.org , but they have only assembled the book, I believe for instance Wilhelm Moberg to have been dead a long time before it was published. User talk:Peter Isotalo (who isn't an administrator) thinks I only should use sources which he approves of. There are no consensus at "Reliable sources". Bishonen and User talk:Peter Isotalo seem to think I'm having a political separatistic agenda, but I do indeed not have. I'm only interested in history. And I just think Scanian history oughn't to be forgotten. Further where there has been clear different historical oppinions between Scanians and other Swedes, I don't think such matters are forbidden to mention (if sourcered, of cource), like the outcomes of three referendums (of a total six). I've read all links Bishonen has provided, but cannot see any sevear breaking of rules. Neither WP:UNDUE (And I do understand "balance") cherrypicking and certainly not POV. (The owning and location of SVT, TV4, Marieberg, DR, TV2 (Denmark) and Jyllandsposten wasn't sourcered. But in my oppinion less sevear since they are articles and I had intended to improve the media part)
Although no consensus has been found regarding this, since 1991 in Scanian homes fairly well spread book is declared "inappropriate" by User talk:Peter Isotalo alone. All its contence, different authors and disregarding how it's used as source. He want's a general ban! I've never come across anything like this. And by translate "Klågerups blodbad" to the correct "Klågeröd's Bloodbath" have I done something wrong ! There are other issues aswell, but it began with this - and article Scania. I've been bold in matters like the lead of Erich von Manstein (not to be confused with the trial of the same person) and French civilian casualties in Normandy Landings and administrator User talk: Diannaa. But I have never been threatened by an administrator. My brief experience of administrator Bishonen gives me the impression that he and User talk:Peter Isotalo wants to exclude me, "Last Warning" without any real reason, but I coming from Scania. (Details can always be discussed of couce) I'm not sure if You can do anything. But I have found You to be a very good administrator. I think (when time comes) perhaps that Bishonen's adminitrational status should be redrawn. I will have to manage without Wikipedia, it seems to become my fate. All the best Boeing720 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John. I don't blame you for retreating from this; the subject is unfamiliar, complex, and to put it mildly, unlikely to be any too interesting to non-Swedes. (It's frankly not very interesting to me either — I only got involved from a sense that somebody had to, when Peter Isotalo brought it to my attention.) But more eyes would certainly be welcome. Chillum seems to be the only non-Swedish speaker so far who's prepared to weigh in (recently on Boeing720's talkpage). Bishonen | talk13:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen. I promise I will take a more detailed look at this tomorrow. I'm sorry I haven't been as much help to Boeing720 as I could have been. --John (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And before I go over to User talk:Boeing720, let me firmly state that I see no reason why Bishonen's admin status should be withdrawn. This is not usually done unless a pattern of abuse can be demonstrated, usually via an ArbCom process. Admins are allowed to make mistakes from time to time, as are regular users. Having skimmed the discussions I see no evidence of this. I certainly don't always see eye-to-eye with Bishonen but as far as I can see she has behaved properly in this instance. --John (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New articles
Hi John. How you getting on?? I submitted an article ages ago. Is there some kind of hold up on articles waiting for review. I'm sure I done it about a month ago. If you can, can you check to see what the hold up is?? Cheers mate --Discolover18 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've been busy! For an editor who said earlier in the year there was nothing left to do, you've now made 1600 edits! Can you give me a clue to what article? --John (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John (and Eric - since I know you watch here) - I'm finally a bit more able to edit and am looking to bring William of Wrotham up to FA standards. I think I've gotten all the sourcing possible - now to get it polished into shape. He's really pretty fascinating - he could be said to have had a hand in founding the Royal Navy, or at least starting the foundations of the thing. All edits and polish and questions welcome... I'm sure there is context that is missing that may need adding in also. Greatly appreciate any help ... Ealdgyth - Talk15:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a man, and I try to be a gentleman, but I admit it depends on the company. I will have a look at the article later tonight. I feel bad about the last call for help from Bencherlite that I let Eric do 99% of the work on. I have been a bit busy in real life recently but it is always a pleasure to work on one of your articles Ealdgyth. I particularly enjoyed, and learned a lot from working on, Middle Ages. Will there be loads of howevers? --John (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)