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
Please could you revisit BrillLyle's talk page. I know, you know, I've disengaged, as you thanked me, but since this, BrillLyle has come back with this comment with regards to my private life. I'm sure you can appreciate, I take my privacy very seriously and this slur is one thing that cuts too deep. I do not appreciate the despicable assertion that just because I have an issue with this infobox, I must have issues in real life. It's disgusting and way too private. The IP hopper troll is also back and keeps putting this comment back on the talk page. Please could this be revdeld too. CassiantoTalk 19:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Archived. --John (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, John. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I see that he is now in prep, but with the (quirky) hook I didn't like too much. If you are comfortable with it, I'll leave it as is, because it may not really matter what makes people curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather an arcane system they use over there, it took me a while to find it. It currently reads ... that Harold Strachan has painted pictures, written books, made bombs, served two prison sentences, and completed an ultramarathon? which I think I am fine with. Thanks a million for your help; don't hesitate if there's anything I can do for you in return. --John (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look at "what links here". The hook doesn't say a word about SA, but perhaps that will even attract more, who knows. I liked your unbiased guidance for Wilkie Bard. You might take a look at Alfonso und Estrella. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Harold Strachan
On 6 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harold Strachan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Harold Strachan has painted pictures, written books, made bombs, served two prison sentences, and completed an ultramarathon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Strachan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Harold Strachan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you Gerda, I enjoyed all the work I did on the article and I enjoyed my brief moment in the sun. Eric Corbett, what would I need to do to get GA? --John (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfC: Butler is one of the articles I avoid (see talk, 2016), so I will be of no help for the RfC, sorry. Today I found a case of a man called just by his given name, - I changed it, of course. Wonderful singer whom I had the pleasure of hearing yesterday, but that article needs work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read that discussion. It isn't terribly edifying, is it? --John (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you don't expect a comment ;) - I made a few icons, did you know, one about ignore, one about enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vieles Reden lässt alte Wunden nur schwer heilen. --John (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you follow ignore (under the cherry image)? One of the sorest wounds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible business. Hey, if you outlive me, can you make sure nobody puts a "This Wikipedian is deceased. His user page is preserved here in his memory." on me? "Deceased" is one of the words I really hate here. Just say "dead", please. --John (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you better put that on your talk, on top, where they'd place the template, rather than relying on me outliving you. I outlived a great model, who left us much work not yet done. But at least he didn't leave this place by blocking himself (to explain "sorest"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, John, why do you support the rule? I have seen your name in a few past discussions and either haven't ruled that out or if I have, I've forgotten the reason.--R8R (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the rule because
a) It doesn't matter. One spelling is as good as the other.
b) If we didn't have such a rule we'd have messy and distracting disagreement in articles.
c) Having the rule means we can use our time to get on with more interesting things. --John (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with but understand a) and c). I don't quite understand b), though: are you okay with WP:ENGVAR then, since it basically allows such disagreement in all non-country related articles? If so, what's the difference?--R8R (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR is in the same vein as ALUM though. Spelling doesn't matter, a long as it is consistent. I support ALUM for the same reasons I support ENGVAR; it prevents silly arguments about whether color or colour is "better" (both are fine) and allows us to get on with more interesting things. For a really serious one, over which people have actually died, see Derry/Londonderry name dispute and WP:DERRY.--John (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see how ENGVAR prevents such arguments over which spelling is better and I agree with this idea. I don't, however, understand, how ALUM and ENGVAR are alike on this one. ALUM seems to contradict the idea: it explicitly says that there is one spelling chosen by an important authority and that therefore we should follow this supreme spelling (it is not said explicitly that the spelling is supreme but one easily could read it this way. I did read it so when I first encountered the rule. That is one reason I don't like it).
I've got another question yet to formulate. The Derry dispute seems not quite like what we have because that one appears to involve politics and nationalism while this one is exclusively about spelling.--R8R (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the authority part which is important though. It just avoids a lot of silly nationalistic arguments which distract from our purpose. A lot of older British chemists still use sulphur, but many use sulfur. American chemists use aluminum but the rest of the world uses aluminium. Nobody cares very much about caesium. In this case the spelling opposition coincides largely with nationalism. It makes much more sense just to standardise on sulfur, aluminium, and get on with our lives. --John (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've highlighted the point that interests me most. You say, "American chemists use aluminum but the rest of the world uses aluminium." Also only Americans use color and the rest of the world uses colour. What is the difference between "we need to standardize on aluminium" and "both color and colour are fine and we don't need to standardize (which is what ENGVAR says)"?
The only potential reason I was able to conclude from what you've said is that it's already the solution we have so we can have it because we already do have a solution, perfect or not, as it doesn't really matter anyway. Then (please note that I really really really don't mean to be rude here) why is that of such interest for you to have a position in the first place? If there are better things to do, why do you keep such a close track of it and not concentrate on more interesting things as it appears to me that you'll be good with any solution as long as it's a recognized solution? (I really hope you see I am not at all trying to be offensive and am sorry if it seems otherwise, I just genuinely don't entirely understand your motivation.)--R8R (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the least annoyed or offended by your questions. The difference between colour and aluminium is that the latter can be considered "correct" in any geographical context, as it's a chemistry word, whereas the former would be "incorrect" in American usage. I have better things to do than as an admin mediating or enforcing the hundreds of disputes that would ensue if we didn't have this rule. The time spent defending the successful longstanding compromise is time well invested. As a chemist I am interested in nomenclature, so the question interested me. What wouldn't interest me would be constant bickering over which version is "correct", when they both are. Think of it as an extension of the principle by which an element like iron has the symbol Fe regardless of whether the locals call it "iron", "Eisen", "fer" or "железо". Make sense? --John (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, what bothers me here is the degree of arbitrariness by which you may consider aluminium correct in American usage. American dictionaries I know use aluminum. This is not even well accepted among American chemists: the American Chemical Society and PubMed use one spelling, and it's aluminum. Lastly, even IUPAC acknowledges the -um spelling. This is important. I can imagine this was not the case when they ruled that Nb should be called niobium (not columbium) and W should be called tungsten (not wolfram). This is not even presently the case with S being exclusively sulfur (not sulphur). American chemists commonly use aluminum in IUPAC's internal publications and even IUPAC's external publications may use both spellings. That is why per styling reasons alone, it is hard for me to see sticking to one spelling justified if IUPAC, the organization whose style we are said to be following, allows both.
I'm having trouble trying to think the Fe example is relevant. A single symbol despite different names is very different from a single name despite different names. The former does not affect the alternatives; the latter does.
What's interesting is the new (for me) idea of that this is a compromise that could prevent further disputes. I'd love to ask some questions about it. Most important of them is, why is ALUM better at preventing disputes than ENGVAR? It would seem to me that both would work equally fine. Second, are we really talking about hundreds of disputes about spellings of these three elements? It may have been the case in 2004 (don't know yet; will check) but it doesn't look like that today and then again, you just have a rule to point at. Third, on a brief check, a predecessor of ENGVAR did exist in 2004 but I have no knowledge of if rules were actually abided as strictly as they are today. That old rule looks like a piece of advice rather than an actual rule so I could see people assuming no hurt in not following it. This wouldn't be the case today.--R8R (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and I don't disagree with anything you say. I have lived and worked in the States. If you think of it as a management problem rather than as one of nomenclature, you'll maybe understand my perspective better. Are you familiar with the Bikeshed problem? Wikipedia in reality has very few stern and inflexible "rules" (BLP, COPYVIO, NPA...?) and most things can be worked around. This agreement has kept the peace for a long time and I don't think you'll find much appetite to change it to address a perceived problem of ... what exactly? Vsmith, you were in on this from the beginning, do you want to add anything? --John (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Element_names: "These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles.." So ... in an article about cooking perhaps "aluminum pan" would be fine; but then cooking is chemistry ... fun :) Vsmith (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed trying to look from the management perspective. I'm still having trouble finding what advantage ALUM brings today. If ALUM was repealed and ENGVAR took over, what disadvantage would that bring? I can't find good reasons to keep the rule apart from people's general conservatism but I'm still trying.
I also find that the peace we are talking about is not particularly great. Which is why it was discussed over and over and over throughout the years after it was accepted. (Why none of those discussions resulted in a change is a different matter. Often it is because of invalid reasoning, often because of improper way to attempt the change. Maybe there actually were great problems in 2004 and they were recent enough in some of those discussions.) I assume that people are no longer arguing because they like the rule but rather because it has been argued over and over so many times it would take quite an effort to stand a chance of succeeding. Very very few readers leave messages at talk pages at all and essentially none will now that they are meant to do that in a special reservation. That does not mean they are fine with our decisions. While both "Derry" and "Londonderry" are probably fine in a Northern Irish context or any context, actually, "aluminium" is strange in an American context.--R8R (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe: why fix what ain't broke :) And yes, aluminium is "strange" (in '04 I was a chemistry teacher in the Ozarks), but the solution worked and I got used to the weird spelling ... and that "ae" in caesium - alien. Vsmith (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsmith: Why ain't it broke? It inserts a word in a spelling unusual (if not unknown to many) to the general American reader to an American text. That's a problem. I don't see why anyone has to get used to a spelling we use; it must come naturally. It appears to me that if it worked, then only poorly: the summary length of discussions since its implementation shows that. You were there in 2004 so you may know: since you said it worked then, why did MoS not? I am genuinely interested about this. I see that MoS back in 2004 contained a line about that the original national variety should be retained.--R8R (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I may answer although the question was not addressed to me; most of our target audience are not American. To an Indian or a South African, "aluminum" is going to look like a typo. To older people from Britain or New Zealand, "sulfur" is going to look weird. The spirit of ALUM and of ENGVAR is to ensure equality of esteem, equality of recognition to the two main spelling dialects of our language. In both cases, the policy recommends not changing spelling arbitrarily from one version to the other and that is the important thing to hang onto here. --John (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, I did not mean that at all. What I meant was that in a text written in AmE, it makes most sense to use the words common to AmE. Just like it is common to use words common to the British in texts written in BrE, words common to the Indians and South Africans in texts written in Indian English and South African English and so on. It would make perfect sense to use one spelling common to both AmE and BrE but there is none and what's worse, it looks like we're trying to invent one. I suspect there may be something in how this rule prevented something back in 2004 to see if those problems are applicable to the present situation but I don't yet see what it was. I'd love to learn that.--R8R (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't waste my time. --John (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I still have not received an apology from you. Do you still not understand what happened and why? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed your block from two months ago, it was richly deserved and there is definitely nothing to apologise for. --John (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still do not understand the situation and you haven't asked any questions IIRC. One bad block can do more damage than a hundred justified blocks can prevent. Admins who make mistakes rarely learn from them, because it is so much easier to block and ignore than it is to communicate and because there is no oversight. If simply reading is not enough to understand what happened and why then that probably requires you to communicate. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you. If you have a question about your block, you may ask it. If you wish to make generalised philosophical points, I may or may not read them and I probably won't respond. --John (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you instead. If you, in the future, see a long term good faith editor doing something you do not understand it is probably wise to ask them what is going on. You are not allowed to use the block button to punish those you dislike, and you are only allowed to use the blockbutton to protect the encyclopedia or its users (e.g. WP:SUICIDE). If you do not understand a situation (even after reading everything related to it) then it is wise to ask questions or ignore it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You can use a search engine to find sourced material. Yes, I'm an administrator. I don't see any recent substantive edits from you, do you edit from different IPs? What is it you want to help with? I see you are interested in shopping malls; I think there is a project you could ask. --John (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you create three pages? The three pages are Gran plaza outlets, Outlets at Tejon and San Francisco Premium Outlets. --2601:205:C100:627F:B973:4EFE:6B:4A59 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to do that. Why would it be a good thing? What are the sources? --John (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is because people want information and details about this. The sources are about, stores, trivia, location, luxury stores, and other shopping centers. Can you add photos? --2601:205:C100:627F:2871:81CA:410F:C9AC (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to do that too. Have you read WP:N? --John (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ealdgyth, and the same to you. --John (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.
I hope I'm not annoying you too much with this article. I only feel obliged to tell you that the FAC is finally on -- and I'm sorry for having forgotten to tell you that earlier. I'm very grateful for your copyedit.--R8R (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
