User talk:John

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


Year?[edit]

Hi John, I presume you meant 2016, not 2015, with this edit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right of course. Thank you. --John (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:CLUE[edit]

DYK that ...every time we WP:AGF, somewhere in heaven an angel gets her wings. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Blessed Angel of Limerick
LOL, that's very good. On the other hand AGF is not a suicide pact, and most damage is done by people thinking they are doing the right thing. --John (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Phew... what a relief that you've not been hacked by some two-litres-of-whiskey-a-session guy, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

MOSFLAG[edit]

Re your revert. As you are aware, I have started a discussion at WP level. FYI, MOSFLAG already states In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. My edit was merely to clarify that. Your particpation at the discussion is requested. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for following up your ping with this message. I think you are right that the lists or tables clause already cover instances like this. All the more reason that there is no need to add this as an exception to the MoS. I will give my opinion at the discussion before I go to bed tonight. --John (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

IP is back[edit]

The IP 85.130.221.249 who vandalizes the Sting page is back. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've warned. I would be quite happy to block if it continues. --John (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Checking in on Walmart article[edit]

Hello John. We talked here before about my suggested updates to the Walmart article, and you said you would look at them to see what could be done. Please let me know if you have any questions on any of the changes I've suggested. I think they're fairly straightforward and uncontroversial, but I'm happy to discuss anything you might see as an issue. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look. --John (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Peace dove.svg Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, you were are a strong candidate and I am sure you will do fine with the tools. Having said that, if there is ever anything you need advice or support over, please don't hesitate to ask. --John (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

Phil Collins[edit]

We have a consistently disruptive IP user on this page 217.149.252.162. Please could you give him a warning because it's getting quite repetitive now. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I can see the IP's point. This might be a case for compromise. Have you tried a talk page discussion? --John (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree this section would benefit from cleaning up, which I'm now doing. However, specific criticisms of Collins by other prominent artists, such as in song lyrics, does seem relevant to the wider issue of Collins' particularly negative profile. It would be nice if they would discuss instead of just arbitrarily removing. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely agree on all counts. Stuff like this is better sourced to a book or other "serious" source; it isn't good enough to source it from song lyrics etc. Good work on the cleanup. --John (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I have cleaned up this whole section and removed a lot of superfluous or repetitive comments while maintaining the essence of the criticism of him and his work. I can't see any problem with the reliability of the source for the lyrics of the Paul Heaton song, therefore I believe it should remain and is relevant to negative perceptions of him by other artists. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I approve of what you have done. For the rest I will see you in article talk. Thanks for raising this with me here. --John (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Charming new contributor[edit]

Dear Mr. Admin, would you care to look at this edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Charming indeed. I gave them a special barnstar. --John (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)