User talk:J.Gowers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, J.Gowers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Esla (Anglo-Saxon king), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Esla (Anglo-Saxon king)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Esla (Anglo-Saxon king), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esla (Anglo-Saxon king). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page User:Agricolae worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't edit another user user's page without their permission. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:Agricolae, you may be blocked from editing. Nominating someone's user page for deletion because you don't agree with their decisions? That's not OK. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

J.Gowers (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I'm really sorry for adding deletion tags to people's user pages. I now realize that that was a wholly irresponsible and unconstructive act and that I should just have ignored the two users rather than let their tauntings get me down so much. I blindly thought that that might be an appropriate retaliation, but I was evidently wrong. I'm not a vandal really; just a kind-hearted historian who is frustrated that the information he so desperately needs for his book is so hard to find on this site. Don't worry; you can remove the block and everything will be fine! J.Gowers (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In view of the comments below, I see no compelling reason to overrule the blocking admin's judgment.  Sandstein  18:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

In view of this apology, an unblock might be indicated, but I'm placing the request on hold to get the blocking admin's opinion.  Sandstein  17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose unblock, in particular due to user's wording in his unblock request of "tauntings", and "appropriate retaliation", suggesting the behavior will not cease - not just the userpage vandalism, but the disruption that occurred, before it. -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. All credit to the editor for his innovative defence of, "I blindly thought that [vandalism] might be an appropriate retaliation," but for me, it just doesn't cut the mustard. ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If I might clarify a little here, the 'tauntings' I spoke fo were tauntings I received from the other two users in question, not tauntings I myself doled out on others. I said 'I blindly thought [not vandalism, but disruptive editing] might be an appropriate retaliation'; the point is that I now realize I was wrong. The most appropriate retaliation is no retaliation, pure and simple. Thank you thank you thank you from the bottom of my heart Cert for drawing my attention to this; I've learned my lesson now? Perhaps you could learn yours. J.Gowers (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you have vandalized this page, I have removed your ability to edit it for the duration of your block.  Sandstein  18:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment as the target of this 'appropriate retaliation' and perpetrator of the so-called 'taunting', I feel I should have the right to respond. This was not just an honest mistake by a new user, nor was it simple vandalism. It was a continuation and escalation of a longstanding dispute. In Feb 2009, User J.Gowers created Esla (Anglo-Saxon king). Shortly thereafter, I posted my concerns about the notability of such a subject to its talk page. No change and no talk followed, so in April, I initiated an AfD, the result of which was Merge following discussion of target. No discussion followed for almost a year, so in Mar 2010, I created a new page that represented a good-faith effort to reflect both the AfD discussion and the scholarly consensus on the broader subject, and performed the merge, while posting to the new article's Talk page a request for improvement. In late Apr 2010 User J.Gowers simply copyied [[1]] the content of the merged article to the end of the new one with an 'editing in progress' tag. I posted my concerns to the talk page, but no further contribution was made by J.Gowers and no attempt to discuss it, so a few weeks later I deleted the add-on, having already incorporated what I thought relevant from it into the body of the article. It was then restored in July 2010[[2]] by IP, along with a verbatim copy[[3]] of another merged page without edit summary or discussion. I again reverted, leaving an explanatory edit summary. In Dec 2010, J.Gowers again simply added[[4]] the same material without edit summary or discussion, and I again reverted (having already incorporated the relevant material) with a concise edit summary. Finally, that brings us to today, when IP restored the material, and then J. Gowers posted to the Talk page 'commending' me (who hadn't made an edit on the page since December) for the appearance of the material. When that was reverted by another user, J.Gowers vandalized my User page, and nominated it for deletion. I have never taunted, I have always explained myself either in edit summaries or Talk pages, and I have gone out of my way to allow the user (who apparently only contributes periodically) time to improve material that I have expressed discontent with. The only responses J.Gowers has ever made, the only attempt at 'discussion', was a disingenuous 'congratulations' for an edit I didn't make, another disingenuous complaint that he needs the text for a book he is writing, this accusation of 'taunting' and the attempt to delete my User page when said IP edit was reverted by someone else, all today. (And were I to not AGF, I would have to suspect him of playing silly buggers with IPs.) The User's explanation further lacks believability: he claims to be "frustrated that the information he so desperately needs for his book is so hard to find on this site" but the text in question is material that he, himself wrote! People have received much more substantial sanction for such behavior. Agricolae (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If I could add my two cents to the discussion, it would seem to me that all OPs have been extremely rude and patronizing to someone who, as a historian, is frankly MORE OF AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD AND A BETTER PERSON TO BE WRITING AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA THAN THEY. This guy has tried to do wonders for the Ancestry of the Kings of Wessex page and has been shut down by a bunch of amateurs. Frankly, you guys probably ought to have your user pages deleted; you are only contributing negatively to this on-line encyclopaedia. (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Now hang on a second there. Nobody deserves to have their user page deleted. That's just unfair. Besides, I'm sure that Cirt and Sandstein and Agricolae and Drmies and I can all work together to make a really excellent page about the ancestry of the Kings of Wessex. I can contribute my knowledge of the subject and my innovative ideas and by knowing what to include (Individual Kings Reference) and what to remove (waffling), Cirt can contribute via her sence of humour, Sandstein can contribut by acting as a mother (or father(?)) figure to the group, and I'm sure Drmies and Agricolae have a lot to contribute in their own quiet ways as well. Just as long as they all agree to stand back and allow me the power to veto any of their decisions: I am a historian after all. Guys, if you are listening - I will LITERALLY PAY YOU to bring back the Individual Kings Reference: I believe that no expense should be spared to make this on-line encyclopaedia as good as possible. J.Gowers (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's it. Faith only goes so far. I have initiated an SPI. Agricolae (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:J.Gowers, you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As concerns the above - It seems I am not allowed to correct bad spelling and grammar on my own talk page without a threat of blocking. Anyone would think you didn't want me to make constructive edits. Edit: apparently this is Wikipedia policy. Even so, you aren't being very nice! J.Gowers (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
I'm giving you a barn star for your excellent edits to history articles on Wikipedia. You have an enormous knowledge of the subject, and a great sense of humour. Also, I believe it was you who introduced the practice of adding a reference guide of mini-articles to various pages to make it easier to find relevant information. SO helpful! (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh I honestly don't know what to say. I've had a bit of a rough patch recently with vandals deleting my individual reference guides (see Ancestry of the kings of Wessex for example) but it's great to know there are people out there who support what I do. That barn star's going straight up on my page! J.Gowers (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar edit summary[edit]

This edit of yours had the edit summary "grammar"; it was nothing to do with grammar, but was instead addition of material. Please do not use misleading edit summaries. Particularly when you involved in a debate with other editors over the article, it can make you look as though you are attempting to get material into the article without other editors noticing. Please be more careful in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry J.Gowers (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


What you've been doing with Gewis is pretty and disruptive--because you had it redirect to your own user page, an admin deleted it. I restored it and protected it, basically from you and you alone. I urge you to think carefully about your edits here. Linking to other editors on your user page and insinuating they're vandalizing your talk page is a silly insult. May I remind you that personal attacks are not allowed? I've also removed the category "Saxons" from your user page--that's also not allowed. Consider this a friendly word of advice. Since you and I have a history now and are thus involved, I won't be blocking you or anything like that should the need arise, but I will report the matter to other, uninvolved administrators. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol! J.Gowers (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

I notice that your substantial recent edits to your user page are in part taking on the appearance of a nascent blog. Indeed, you actually use that word. This is contrary to guidelines. I suggest that you take a little care here, and perhaps read Wikipedia:User pages. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry; it's no longer nascent. Will that be all? J.Gowers (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverse Psychology[edit]

Please vandalize Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make edits that appear to be attributed to other Wikipedia users: the comment above is by you, not by Drmies. If you're interested in contributing to the encyclopedia constructively, please do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. J.Gowers (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ancestry of the kings of Wessex ‎, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, could you please stop adding strange info to TV station articles? Cheers. J.Gowers (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You can choose[edit]

58 years old, wants kids, has a dog, historian, likes salad. You sound like a nice person. So, what's with using your page as a blog against community wishes, vandalizing, and antagonizing the volunteers who make the encyclopedia?

You write that you value and use Wikipedia as a resource. Isn't this sort of like going into a soup kitchen that you eat at every day and hitting the volunteers and trashing the place? Please think about what you are doing, inside. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MyPoorDeadDog.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:MyPoorDeadDog.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the heads-up. J.Gowers (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:MyPoorDeadDog.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MyPoorDeadDog.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you had a dog, you'd know how I feel right now.... (40px) My poor dead dog is sad....J.Gowers (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

File:TenisonRoadTriangle.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TenisonRoadTriangle.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:J.Gowers/Tenison Road Triangle[edit]

User:J.Gowers/Tenison Road Triangle, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:J.Gowers/Tenison Road Triangle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:J.Gowers/Tenison Road Triangle during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit on my talk page[edit]

Hello. Can you please explain to me why, with this edit, you responded to a comment on my talk page, signing it with my username?  Sandstein  15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And why you also impersonated me on this talk page, with this edit, which I have now reverted?  Sandstein  15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I'm trying to change it so it says my name. [impersonating signature removed]
That makes no sense. If you can change your default signature, you know enough to make it say your own username instead of mine. And what were you doing on my talk page in the first place? Be advised that you may be blocked if you make further edits with a signature that impersonates another editor.  Sandstein  15:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I hate your gut. Why can't you just let the old, established users of Wikipedia do their job? I'm afraid this is one Wiki-site where there just isn't room for a new guy. Sorry!  Sandstein  15:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Wim Deetman
Trey Lee Chui-yee
Antipope Paschal III
Josef Noa
Differential Dynamic Programming
Prince Aviation
Congressional Post Office scandal
Antonio da Ponte
Air Vega
Transfer-matrix method
Antietam Lake
Flexible polyhedron
Hoffman–Singleton graph
St Padarn's Church, Llanbadarn Fawr
Scalar projection
Lionel Banks
Harry Manfredini
Covert agent
To-Shin Do
Mathematics of radio engineering
Letter of introduction
Rotation matrix
Passion cantata
Add Sources
Sonatine (Ravel)
Matrix (mathematics)
Alex Wade
Subaru SRD-1
English-language editions of The Hobbit
Leonardo da Vinci's personal life
Military junta
Euclidean vector

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit any of my subpages[edit]

I hadn't noticed that it had been edited, but please don't do this again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, J.Gowers. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, J.Gowers. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)