|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.
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)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for doing all the work on the overlinking cleanup!
I posted a review to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2 but need to be gone for a few days (unexpected family emergency) and won't be able to follow up. I made a suggestion to eliminate "however". You're better at explaining this than I am, and I can't right now. If you have the time. Just wanted to explain the ping. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps for a Scotsman ?
Hello John ! In the article James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, and in its last part, "death" - has someone put a template, which states "repetitive repetition of redundancy". If I understand that correctly, can I not really agree. Not as the part is today at least. I myself as well as others have presumably & hopefully made some improvements. So if possible (only), do you think I can remove that template now ? (Just by the way, I don't recall the title, but I have watched the very good BBC-film about Mary, Queen of Scots and "Bothwell" as he was called in that TV-film. Perhaps 8-10 years ago). The template refers to his last years in Norway and Denmark, not just his death. So I have in mind to make new headlines in that part, if the template can be removed. Boeing720 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
File:KZ Dachau Entranceedit.jpg listed for discussionFile:KZ Dachau Entranceedit.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. I am somewhat semi-retired from Wikipedia, so next time it goes up for a FAC, should you think of me, please email me and I will post a review again. (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Acne listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I accidentally your edits on Alan Sugar - I've got a problem with my touchscreen! I've now reverted my revert - my apologies! 19:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrStrauss (talk • contribs)
Hello again John. What is your opinion on adding a hatnote to Community Charge at the Poll tax article? I was reverted in adding one, so I left a message here.--Nevé–selbert 22:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
peace and joy
I pinged you to the FAC: with the problems the licensing of the audio files you kindly supplied seem to cause (and nothing I even understand): would you mind removing them? Perhaps take to the talk page for someone to help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)