User talk:John

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

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

Buchen Idstein.jpg

... for improving article quality in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --John (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
... and in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm watching the words, but not seeing a problem[edit]

'However' might be a word to watch, but removing it wherever you see it without regard to whether it is actually problematic is, frankly, disruptive. Where you recently removed it, its use was not inappropriate. From a structural standpoint it is better at the beginning of that sentence, and I placed it back there, but just removing it isn't improving the article. The source clearly states the relationship between the content of the preceding sentence and the one with the 'however', so its use is appropriate: "Although the acid-ash hypothesis has been widely accepted and broadly stated as the major modifiable risk factor for bone loss in well cited scientific papers [4, 15], as well as textbooks [16], reference works [17, 18], and lay literature, this hypothesis has not been subjected to critical review.". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are struggling to understand. Are you a native English speaker? Even if you are, it can take a long time to get the hang of stylistics. There are resources and courses you can access if you are interested in becoming a better writer. --John (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looking at some of your other recent revisions, I also see that you removed some illegitimate uses of the word here, alongside some that were appropriate (note that one of those sentences did have severe issues, but not with 'however'). The word is often used badly, I agree, but please be careful that you are removing them correctly and don't just strip them out willy-nilly. Also, per your reply, read WP:CIVIL. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
As a professional-level writer for over 30 years, I am pretty comfortable and confident with my writing skills, thanks. As an admin here for over 12, you may be sure I am also very familiar with WP:CIVIL. --John (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure you have read it, and I'm sure you are also very good at following the letter of it while ignoring the spirit. Your credentials don't really mean anything to me I am afraid; I am less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt given your battleground attitude and that you have seemingly deliberately chosen to goad me wherever possible. I wish you well in your editing endeavours. Try to be nicer to people, it gets you further. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. Try and consider that others may be right and you may be wrong, as in this case. On a writing-based project, writing quality takes precedence over being nice. --John (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason you can't have both. I think any editor would expect and appreciate an explanation when reverted, rather than a revert with no explanation whatsoever. Edit summaries are there for a reason. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I take your point. I will try to take time out to educate you. Can you please refrain meantime from undoing any more of my copyedits? --John (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I spent a good hour looking up stuff about 'however' used in this way, but the sources I am reading say that using it this way t the start of a sentence to connect sentences is perfectly fine. We could also use a semi-colon I suppose if you don't like it being at the beginning of a sentence (i.e. xxxxxxx; however, yyyyyy). I do understand that it is often used incorrectly, and most of the 5-7 'however's in that naval article were definitely incorrect, but from my viewpoint it seems like you are just removing any that you find because you don't like the word, including a couple that look OK. The situation at Alkaline diet looks similar to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I added some explanation to User:John/however to explain my thoughts. Tony1 is very good on this stuff. --John (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) X was born in Grimsby; however he grew up in London. ("X was born in Grimsby and grew up in London." There's no contradiction in being born one place and growing up in another.) No-one is saying there's any "contradiction". This is just a stylistic choice, depending on what the author is trying to emphasize, e.g. that X's parents moved unexpectedly when a child, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This conversation is indeed about stylistics Martin, you're right there. --John (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, a discussion about grammar with you can be so refreshing. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree, learning, for example to avoid "however", trying to do better without a clumsy thing - and what does "how ever" stand for, anyway? - separated by a comma. I have a little song of praise for the Lord on the Main page, but praise this lord of language also. Flowers above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
However, John, I Can't Give You Anything (But My Semicolons). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) ... who could forget the last "HoweverGate" back in June 2016?
"however" abundant in that link, with and without commas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

People's Vote[edit]

Hi John - regarding this edit where you removed the navbox, what's your opinion regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 12#Template:People's Vote? --woodensuperman 15:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I saw that. I'm not sure what I think. --John (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

History of aluminium[edit]

Hi John! I've got an FAC of mine going on, and there's a comment in it that says, "Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem." I'm somewhat surprised to see this but, even though I will surely try to fix myself what I can, could I ask for your help with this? I know I've been needy lately with my prose but could you please help me? If you can, this will be greatly appreciated! Also, if you want a favor in return, ask right away!--R8R (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look. --John (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Really sorry to bother you again and I normally wouldn't, but Tony1 has picked the article for review and he suggested I remove superfluous instances of "that" and you check after me; could you please do that? Did I do it right? Didn't I miss anything? Here's the diff.--R8R (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Links of countries[edit]

Hi! Could you explain why is it unnecessary to link participating countries of the Joint Investigation Team in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Criminal investigation. There is even an internal link of JIT in the lead section pointing to this section. There are no any other links in the whole article where readers can click on the team countries. JSoos (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:OVERLINK. --John (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course I understand, you think that in this case it was overlinked. I did reason why I think it was relevant, but you do not give a hint why would it be "difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding" when in the paragraph it is specifically talking about JIT members. There are six lines with 2 links, these 4 more will not make that overlinked. Why is it not overlinking, when talking about passengers nationality, and why is it when talking about members of JIT? JSoos (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It is overlinking wherever it occurs. --John (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17[edit]

Take this to article talk or to AN/I please. I won't discuss with someone who makes allegations they are unwilling to substantiate. --John (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
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.

"SA-11" was in the article since July 2014: a damage pattern indicative of a SA-11. So, what we have:
1. Change in the consensus version: [1] - the revert to consensus: [2]
2. Start of the edit war, re-introduction of non-consensus changes: [3] and the righteous revert: [4]
3. Third addition of non-consensus changes: [5]

And then there was the help of a friend. Read the rule Wikipedia:Consensus, please.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh hi, Nicoljaus, fancy seeing you here. I think if you want to accuse John of sockpuppetry, you ought to at least show us a few diffs and name-some-IP-names? Or else haul him straight over to AN/I an ask for and WP:SPI? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear oh dear. I'm fairly familiar with that "rule", Nicoljaus, having been an admin for over 12 years. I don't think the consensus favours your position, and neither does common sense. Throwing around accusations isn't the way to go here. As Martin says, if you suspect me of anything nefarious, AN/I is the route to take. Otherwise leave it on article talk, please. --John (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the consensus favours your position - have you any arguments for this besides the years of your adminship? The history of revisions attests against you.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, consensus isn't a head-count but have you tried counting the number of people who want to use Buk, and comparing it to the number who wish to use two names for it? You could use the fingers on each hand. Unless one number is a lot more than the other, you haven't got consensus. There's a lot more to consensus than counting, but it's always a good start. Do you still accuse me of meatpuppetry? Because if you do, we shouldn't be talking here but on AN/I. If you don't, a retraction is in order. --John (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You could use the fingers on each hand. - I will answer in your style - maybe you will try to use your head to understand what is going on in discussing your edits? It does not matter which terminology you like. It is important that the quoted sources used this, and not another term.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are little different, are not they? After 12 years of adminship it is not difficult to bring like-minded editors for the edit warring.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see, not just socks but real meat. But as John says, it's time to either retract or to name names, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoljaus (talkcontribs) 23:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say![edit]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018[edit]

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema![edit]

Africa (orthographic projection).svg
Video-x-generic.svg

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Country Winners
  • Diversity winner
  • High quality contributors
  • Gender-gap fillers
  • Page improvers
  • Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema![edit]

Africa (orthographic projection).svg
Video-x-generic.svg

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Country Winners
  • Diversity winner
  • High quality contributors
  • Gender-gap fillers
  • Page improvers
  • Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

Remembering fondly six years of helping each other, after meeting in sad circumstances. Wink mit dem Zaunpfahl: I have a FAC open (and a procrastinated one, and it's about Time, and time), and just read yesterday thanks for your copy-editing. Could you do that for me, and perhaps even a review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wilhelm Krüger[edit]

Notice

The article Wilhelm Krüger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It appears that this is a fake article, because that person never existed : he was confused with Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger at the time of his creation. It has just been deleted from French Wikipedia where it had been copied from English Wikipedia. Please see that discussion page : [6]. Best regards. Gkml

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gkml (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018[edit]

Advice wished, if possible[edit]

Hello again, John !
I'm having very unnecessary trouble with another user over a talk-page comment. I think he even removes signatures at his own talk-page. And comes with the most silly allegations I've ever experienced here. Just imagine - if I at talk-page of either Nicola Sturgeon , Mary, Queen of Scots or who ever historical Scottish celebrity (or the opposite of "celebrity"), had came up with missing information and had written "this article is too positive" (too negative if it was about "a bad guy")- would I then be "revealed Anti-Scottish bias" ?
Perhaps , you could have a brief look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Ukraine_1920,_Vilnius,_after_1926_a_fascistic_state._Too_positive_tone_for_this_status
And with your admin-tools, perhaps you can see weather this other user changes things not intended to be changed. If possible perhaps you also can have a look at this user's own talk-page. I think he removes signatures and other matters in order to hide earlier notes and warnings, and has even been asked not to do so. And this user is banned from at least one "heavy" topic, according to what he has replied to another user at his talk-page (WW2-polish_matters, I believe). Now he want's me to apologise, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boeing720#Confused.
What to do, I don't know. I just wish to get rid of him. There's no substance to what he writes. And if possible only. Boeing720 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope it receives the attention it warrants here. Could you possibly take a closer look at it John? I'm surprised that Boeing720 being six years(?) on Wiki makes such slips. Especially after being notified [7] that the comments he is answering are not mine but an IP user [8]. I would let it go seeing that he/she is clearly confused, but now an allegation of sockpuppetry (among other things) needs to be addressed. Could you John please tutor the user and additionally ask him to redirect his comments to the proper editor? Thanks. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

User Bruceeddie01[edit]

We have a problem with this user on the page Steve Hogarth who keeps changing the D.O.B. to conflict with the date we have a source for. Thanks.