User talk:JohnBlackburne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rockall, a small, isolated rocky islet in the North Atlantic Ocean.

Arbitration Case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes.

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive case notifications for this case you can remove yourself from the notifications list here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

re your previous - The science of, and writings on, silver obviously predates US english and therefore needs to be written in proper english.[edit]

re your previous -

The science of, and writings on, silver obviously predates US english and therefore needs to be written in proper english.

Jim colhern (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Feel free to ask there, or here, if you have any more questions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


I split out the unreadable template into separate ones. So I think the smaller one will do. Sorry for not putting a comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewerwhale (talkcontribs) 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not unreadable; there are far worse templates on WP in terms of readability, but they provide navigation between a set of related articles so serve a useful purpose. E.g. {{Chinese language}} or {{United States presidential election, 2016}}. {{Chinatowns}} is valuable as a visual overview of the location and distribution of Chinatowns, as well as links to individual articles. The one you replaced it with {{Chinatown}} does none of this, and is so small it is easily overlooked.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


See here Why did you remove this? Do you think we shouldn't link these characters to Wiktionary? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed out the edit summary – I did a null edit to supply it. You removed the markup that indicates its in Chinese, i.e. the HTML spans that are useful for browsers to properly display the characters, for screen readers and other automated tools. I don’t see the point of linking to Wiktionary there, no more than we would link them to sun. moon as common words, not relevant to the topic, especially as the translations are provided right next to them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Del (letter) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Del (letter). Since you had some involvement with the Del (letter) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandroxavier (talkcontribs) 19:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


This template needs attention. It appears we can either make the map or the category work, but not bothRathfelder (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Rathfelder, I fixed it by disabling the category. You can re-add the correct, or add another, category manually.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm quite happy with that.Rathfelder (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lakshipur[edit]

Hello JohnBlackburne,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Lakshipur for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That’s fine. I moved it from the talk page to the article page, having checked it existed on a map, fixed a few small things, but have no interest in improving it further. Easy enough for someone to recreate if they have something to write, with sources.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

History of science template[edit]

Hi, there is a new Template:History of science navbar in use in what I thought was all the articles listed in the Template:History of science sidebar: so there ought not to be any articles left using the sidebox. Since several of the HoS articles have several navigation bars, it makes sense to have HoS as a navbar also. This also allows articles to use images rather than being cluttered up with navigation on the right hand side. If I missed any articles I'm happy to go and fix them, but it seems unwise to leave the old template in place unmodified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Further ... not sure why I hadn't thought to check What links here. Done that: only user and project pages left. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, there is nothing wrong with the sidebar. It has been around for over a decade in some form, and added by editors to articles who thought it useful and improved the article. A History of Science article does not normally need a lead image – it is not a person, place or creature which has a natural representation – but this is something to be addressed in individual articles, not a reason to remove it from others.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks for replying. I am not impugning this sidebar in particular, nor do I think it was poorly structured or anything like that - it covered what was necessary. My point is simply that several of the articles actually had two or more extensive side-boxes, and in some cases also several navigation bars at the end. Having History of science join Philosophy of science and the other navigation bars is practical, convenient and space-saving, giving readers the option of browsing if they wish, but not forcing it on them as they start to read an article. The case for using compact, collapsible navbars in a well-standardised format is more or less overwhelming, really.
On images, I only mention them because they are one of the reasons why having multiple sideboxes is undesirable: other reasons include distraction and taking up space especially on the smaller screens of mobile devices. I haven't gone about adding or deleting lead images from HoS articles and wasn't thinking of doing so. I don't believe these articles need images more or less than articles on any other topic; where an image seems natural and appropriate, I would certainly use one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


I see the problem, and believe that I have fixed it, but the argument was there is no MoS for whitespace not that "it was there before". If you doubt, click the "new section" link at the top of the page and then provide both a subject and a body. Save the new section. Once saved, edit the page to see how it appears. This is the way that spacing is to be done. Cheers. (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You reintroduced a wide space at the top due to multiple blank lines that I had fixed. That was the damage and why I reverted you. I have no view on the other changes but you should not blindly revert or restore a previous version without checking intervening edits and fixes.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You wrote, in part, "and 'it was like that before' is not a reason to restore it", yet I did not supply that as my argument. My argument was, "Restore to last stable version. There is no Whitespace MoS! But if you use Add Section you'll see that this is the correct whitespace". You did not just revert that edit, you reverted the correct addition of whitespace. You should not blindly revert or restore a previous version without checking what you're actually doing is correct.
Your reason was wrong, and instead of admitting that, you simply focused on one element of your revert, one that you thought you did correctly. (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Umami and Talk:Umami[edit]

Hello JohnBlackburne: Would appreciate your review of the Talk discussion and history of activity by user (SOCK with IP Similar trolling as at Garum. Will follow your reply here. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


JohnBlackburne, I don't understand your statement that "Chris55 overreacted badly bringing it here" -- to the Incidents Noticeboard. I don't see what other recourse I had to such a threat. There seem to be scientist editors who think they understand everything scientific perfectly and can impose their prejudices absolutely. This editor reacted violently quite out of proportion to the matter in hand and is continuing to slash and burn his way through the article without ever discussing it on the talk page. Chris55 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My reaction to receiving an unwarranted warning on my talk page is just to ignore it. If the editor then escalates it to e.g. a notice board I might respond, but a boilerplate notice written by someone else is not even worth responding to. Just ignore it and let whatever the issue is let it de-escalate as everyone calms down and gets on with improving the encyclopaedia.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right. But maybe you've never been bullied. However it's receiving plenty of attention on the Fringe Noticeboard. So he has plenty of friends. Chris55 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cebu etc.[edit]

There is a new set of problems. Basically, wikidata has been building (still) a lot of addition parts - basically all municipalities (and cities) have given its barangays. It seems though that wikidata brings everything rather then just the parts required.

I know wikidata is pretty bad, but this is really something else.

What can be done?

(By the way, changing <wiki>{{PH town table|07.... to {{PH town table/mid|07....</nowiki> is worse.)

– Alice 张梦平 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Zhang Mengping (talkcontribs)

I have looked it longer. When the edit is preview, it works fine. It doesn't show any problem until the edit is done. Then there errors all over the place, from halfway the table. I don't understand - if the preview goes to the end without problem, than it seems like the 'real' edit it should work properly. If the review doesn't work the same as the 'real' than what is it for?
What I want to do is version2. There should be an umbrella where ALL wd is read, e.g. area={{PH wikidata|area|{{{3|}}}}} each read only once, then used as internal variables.
I have filled all cities and municipalities in Siquijor and Bohol. I have made only half of the cities/municipalities in Cebu. I would need an addition module, which can just get the number of e.g. barangay within municipality. Similarly it may be a need to get the nth element.
In an aside, there will be a problem for population (2020) and electoral (also 2020} when there would be a need for showing (current) and (penultimate) – currently the elements are (current) and (the other one).
Alice 张梦平 05:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
What you describe is normal, for expensive pages. Each time they are generated, so in preview or when saved, it takes a different amount of time. For expensive pages that means sometimes they take too long and it stops executing scripts and you see errors. Purging the page forces it to regenerate the page and can clear the errors.
There was a discussion about this recently at the village pump: see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_153#The time allocated for running scripts has expired. Probably better to talk about the template at its talk page, or another related page, than here or again at the village pump.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...[edit]

I noticed that you are an expert with ActionScript.

Does that mean you know JavaScript by default?

How much overlap is there between the two? The Transhumanist 01:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

They both descended from a common language but have diverged rapidly since. Similarities now are more down to convergent evolution – e.g. both have added support for 3D with Stage3D and WebGL. But they are distinct enough that knowing one does not mean you know the other, and I have very little experience with Javascript.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. The common language they diverged from was ECMAScript?
By the way, who are the best JavaScript programmers you know of on Wikipedia? The Transhumanist 06:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, ECMAScript. As for JS programmers I have no idea. If you have a particular problem you need help with then there are various noticeboards you can post on. Normally who has time/is interested in a problem is more important than level of expertise.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Wish me luck. The Transhumanist 02:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Coord for mountains[edit]

I edit conflicted with you at Garnet Peak. I am very unsure of {{coord}} but digging around makes me think some extra parameters are wanted. Please see my edit. The type affects the URL of the link used for the coordinates value in the infobox, although I don't know what it does exactly. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I am developing a plan to deal with 2016–17 PlusLiga, with a module. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the type helps it decide the zoom level, which you can also specify explicitly, but saying what it is is far easier. I try and add it and any other parameters that are there, but had not been adding it otherwise. It makes sense though for e.g mountains so will try and do so. And yes, the Polish football league. I have purged it a couple of times as a temporary fix, but had not looked into what else might be done.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

16, March 2017, (Orders of Magnitude/Numbers Reversion)[edit]

Thanks for the warning, regarding edit war. (I was new, and had not yet observed that particular rule)

An update announcement (together with reasoning) was left on the page of the other party. 24 hours was noted as a window within which the other party should respond. After 24 hours, it appears there is concession. The proper reversion has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgrammingGodJordan (talkcontribs) 01:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite[edit]

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

you should see what you are reverting doing before just reverting[edit]

"1948–1992"? north korea did not stop being a one party state in 1992 (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

user:Gilliam ‎just acknowledged that see (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)[edit]

The naming discussion still continues. What to do with your proposal? --George Ho (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Quadratic equation[edit]

It's given definition is incorrect. Fix my wording if you like, but a definition "afterwards" is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The established order is 1. Subject 2. Definition 3. Additional Information. Sleepwalkerpm (talk)

Sleepwalkerpm I presume you are referring to Quadratic equation. The best place to discuss it would be the article’s talk page, so other editors can participate, useful for reaching consensus.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Revert of my Republic of China (1912-49) edit[edit]

Hi JohnBlackburne, your reason for reverting my edit in Republic of China (1912-49), "Taiwan is part of China during it's whole history" is incorrect. Taiwan was under Japanese rule and was incorporated as+ part of its territory since 1895, and didn't become administered by ROC until the end of 1945 due to losing WWII. Are you not aware of that? Mistakefinder (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan was part of China from 1693. Yes, it was occupied by the Japanese, as were other parts of China. But the world did not recognise Japan’s occupation of Chinese territories, which did not stop being parts of China.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Issue with Dates[edit]

Is there any particular reason for this or somewhere that you can show me a link from Wikipedia that mandates this? It would seem to me that as CE becomes more accepted within the academic setting their should be a moving to update Wikipedia pages to be more appropriateLessconfusedthanbefore (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lessconfusedthanbefore. The guideline is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style. It goes into it in great detail, more than I could even remember. If you have any further questions on it feel free to ask here or on that guideline’s talk page.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Case[edit]

Hi there, I would like to invite you to participate in this arbitration case I filed regarding the ROC/PRC issue. Supreme Dragon (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Special:Permalink/787497450#Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC Closed[edit]

This is to inform you that the request for arbitration in which you were recently named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed. GoldenRing (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

about my guan page[edit]

HI, It is pleased to talk with you, I'm contacting you regarding my guan page, you know the page on guan dialect, I do have to say I just started on Wikipedia so pardon me if I don't know how to get around or create a fancy page.

the reason why I wish to create a page that mean the same as mandarin Chinese is because some argues that the right translation of the dialect 官话 ( in Chinese) is mandarin and some say its Guan dialect, I personally think it makes more sense that its guan, I also have some aspect of that mandarin Chinese page that I don't agree with from my reading, and does wish to make a small page of my own explaining some things about the language that I think the mandarin page got wrong. Granted that page of mine was not fully done yet so it seems like I plagrised a lot from that web, but I'm not trying to plagerise that much, also I did not change the reference from that web but that's cos I just started Wikipedia and don't yet now how to change reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrychen88850 (talkcontribs) 09:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Terrychen88850, If you see anything wrong on a page such as Mandarin Chinese then you should go ahead and edit the article to fix it. That is much better than doing it in a new article, for all sorts of reasons. Don’t worry about making mistakes editing, we all do it at some time. If people do not agree with your changes then it is normal to discuss them on the article’s talk page, Talk:Mandarin Chinese. You can also post there yourself, to point out any things that are wrong with the article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the way to reply to you on wiki, I mean am I suppose to just edit the section and add stuff to reply? So I'm suppose to edit things I think is wrong and not make a new page, and if I want the article to be called something else I should start a requested move, which its likely to be successful, since most people don't call it guan dialect. I think forget it, changing th article's name probaply wont be passed, and If I wish to change a few aspact of the main article I have to give tons of evidence, ah forget it that will take take too much work.

Tho could I ask tho if I were to create a page titled guan dialect talking about the same dialect, however I don't plagerise anything from the mandarin page, can I publish it? say if I were to create a guan dialect page, but I write my own introductory paragrage and simply put 2 paragragh introducing the aspects that I have in disagreement with the mandarin page, and I find my own sources to back those up. can I publish that page? will you or someone revert it?

Bassically I know I have the problem of copying ther mandarin page, but I don't say I make my own page completely out of my own sources, my own words but is on the exact sanme topic as the mandarin thing is that fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrychen88850 (talkcontribs) 09:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not the way to do it. We have one article on each topic, such as Mandarin Chinese. If there is more information to be added on the topic it should be added to that article. But review the article first, see if it covers what you want to say. Then think how your improvements can be integrated into that article.
It is simply wrong to create two articles on the same topic. That is called content forking, and is a bad idea for a number of reasons: it is confusing for readers, makes extra work for editors. Where the articles are the same it’s pointless duplication. When they are different it is unclear which is correct. Wikipedia works best if everyone interested in a topic, such as Mandarin Chinese, works together to improve that article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

OK then, nevermind then, Ill just not edit anything

people here on Wikipedia are actually really nice lol :)

Hi Terrychen88850, please don't give up on editing Wikipedia. To start with try doing small edits (non-controversial corrections and additions) to a variety of articles on topics you are interested in, just to get the hang of the way Wikipedia works, and only after you have some editing experience should you try to create a new article or make major changes to existing articles. BabelStone (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi John, I was wondering if you could take a look at Contraposition and the new additions by user Josang to this and several other logic related pages. I am a bit out of my depth here and while I can object to these additions based on WP policy, I don't have a good handle on the content and am wondering if I am being too Draconian in this matter. Thanks. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi John I would like to ask why you deleted my page again? The riddle "Mazarae" has become much more famous and it has a lot of people who are interested into it. The page of Mazarä in the german wikipedia is one of the 26 most interesting riddles in the german Wikipedia and it is on the 10th place with more then 3'000 visitors. I got a few messages from friends around Zurich and people who would love to understand the riddles in their language which would be possible with the english translation page in How can I go on? Is there a way to translate the german page into english without getting into troubles? Thanks for you help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanspeterleupp (talkcontribs) 14:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hanspeterleupp, I did not delete it, I cannot as I am not an administrator. It was deleted by Hut 8.5, an administrator, due to the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazarae. You were aware of that discussion and its outcome as you participated in it so you should not have recreated the page. What pages are on the German Wikipedia are not relevant – each Wikipedia has its own rules, its own criteria for inclusion, and they often are different from the rules and criteria here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
If you want to recreate the article then you'll need to address the issues in the discussion that led to its deletion: that the puzzle isn't prominent enough and that it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. As far as I can see the only change you made in your recreated version was to add the sentence "But also the interest of other national and international newspaper and magazines is rising continuously", which proves nothing. If that isn't possible then I'm afraid Wikipedia can't have an article on the puzzle until it becomes more popular. As noted above the fact that the German Wikipedia has an article on it doesn't mean anything as the Wikipedias are independent and have different standards of inclusion, it may be that the puzzle meets the German standards but not the English ones. (Or the German article might not survive a deletion nomination either.) Hut 8.5 17:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Gravitational wave[edit]

Hello JohnBlackburne, This is what I wrote on my talk page. Let us find out a constructive solution. JohnBlackburne Dr Baker Jr's collaborator's work in HFGW finds a reference in the main article. His site GravWaves has a detailed account of the history and development of GW research. He is a pioneer in the HFGW field, however, this article is not restricted to LFGW; the article is called Gravitational waves. The US patents form an integral part of the technology researched to find applications for HFGW; therefore, they are very relevant for a general reader. The edits which added the links were started months back by another editor and there was no objection by the current editors who were very much observant even then. Now, why this war-like situation? In a Wikipedia article, a general account of the subject is given which includes technology and other educative pages from the internet. GW is a developing field, hence, all possibilities and potentials are to be respected and presented. Please, enlighten me, how taking away technology possibilities of HFGW would enrich the article? My request is to give what I discussed here a thought. Thanks User:Mandot —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cottonmother —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cottonmother, I am aware of that rule, and so do limit myself to three reverts or less, taking it to the talk page before it escalates further, as you should too.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But action have you taken against your fellow editor Deacon Vorbis who repetitively used abusive language against my edits? You seem to have formed a group; that's ok, but using profane words by Wikipedia editors is highly reprehensible. If your group thinks, this is how you can shoo away edits which don't suit your agenda, then you indeed are a condeminible lot. languageCottonmother — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonmother (talkcontribs) 14:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with another editor‘s behaviour, including their use of language, you can report it. But you should not use this as reason to edit war. Two wrongs do not make a right, so edit warring is still wrong, still likely to get you blocked. This is a bright line rule: no matter the circumstances if you are edit warring and perform more than three reverts on an article in 24 hours you can be summarily blocked.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

James Matisoff's reconstruction of Proto-Tibeto-Burman[edit]

The talk page of this article describes the reason why it was long ago moved to this title. The change reflected a consensus of the editors who had been involved in writing it. Recently NoGhost moved the article without changing its content or describing his reason for the move on the article's talk page. Consequently, I moved it back. Now you have moved it to where he had put it, again without adding to the page's content and without discussing the move on the article's talk page or my own talk page. Can you please explain why you have done this? Now the content of the article and the title no longer match. If you think it is inappropriate for the article to only describe the views of a single author, I can only agree. But the solution here is not to misrepresent the content with an inaccurate title, it is to diversify the content of the article.

Tibetologist (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Any editor can move a page, when it an uncontroversial or obvious move. But when there is any dispute or disagreement over a page’s title it should be resolved though a WP:requested move discussion, as I see you have done. The proper thing to do, if it has already been moved, is to move it back to the name it was at before the move or series of moves, if it had that name for a long time as a full article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
N.B. the name I am proposing is where the article sat for years, until NoGhost moved it. So, would not the correct procedure been for you to have supported my move of it back to its original spot and for NoGhost to open the discussion explaining why he thought it should be moved? Tibetologist (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
It was at Proto-Tibeto-Burman language for years, since creation, until you moved it earlier this year. Anyway, we now have a RM so best to discuss the actual issue of which name is best there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


If you like to share your feedback JohnBlackburne, you're more than welcome to join in the proposal to split ROC-related topics from the Template:Taiwan topics since I proposed to split off from it. Wrestlingring (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

China edit reversion[edit]

Hi. About the China Daily thing on Western v. Chinese morals, I note you gave five reasons for wanting to suppress the information from the page: Initially,

  • (1) the Guardian did not say it;
  • (2) the China Daily is not a reliable source;

and then,

  • (3) source misrepresented;
  • (4) trivia;
  • (5) not a major issue worth mentioning.

I'm going to take it that you did not actually change your position after reading my edit summaries but that you were adding reason upon reason because I will assume, in your favour, consistency. My response:

  • (1) (factual error in your edit summary) the text deleted by you did not suggest that the Guardian had said it; and the China Daily did, which is what the text informed readers;
  • (2) (question of reliability protected in text) We are not looking to the China Daily here as a source of any independent fact; we are relying upon it to represent the position of the State of which it is a wholly-controlled organ and frequent vehicle for Party propaganda; and, more importantly, the text deleted by you was the fact that the organ had published the information, not simply the underlying pronouncement. Readers were expressly given the opportunity of forming their own views about whether to accept or reject what the China Daily had published.
  • (3) Please explain how. I certainly try earnestly to be strictly faithful to source and hope I have not failed here.
  • (4) & (5) (of great importance to feminists, in particular, and the subject of very high-profile debate worldwide) These two are really of the same specie but of different intensity. If the state position is that women enjoy a higher degree of protection from predatory men in China than in the West, arising from a cultural norm in society, the matter is of the greatest possible relevance and interest in today's world. It goes to the heart of healthy relations between the sexes; it is far more relevant and important than whether there has been a resurgence in Chinese opera, for instance, featured in this article without challenge. Please explain your suggestion.

I note that the China Daily has taken down the piece today, so it is for this reason alone that I am not pursuing the inclusion of the material on the page. sirlanz 23:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

sirlanz, It’s hard to explain fully in an edit summary so sorry if it seemed terse. My objections were twofold. First as China Daily is not a reliable source the only good source is the Guardian. But their headline was "Anger as Chinese media claim harassment is just a western problem" and your text did not reflect this anger at this claim, or other reactions reported by reliable sources.
The bigger objection is that "China Daily writes some nonsense" is hardly noteworthy or remarkable. This perhaps got more coverage than other examples, as it was so clearly wrong and easy to refute (e.g. this, though not a reliable source). But it’s still not appropriate for inclusion as-is. Properly sourced to e.g. academic studies there might be something worth addig on the status of women in China, compared to other countries, but it might be more appropriate for a more specific article such as Women in China.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Happily. [addition: For the record, clarification of the suggestion that my edit misrepresented the source establishes that the criticism was unfounded. The edit represented the fact presented in the source. What it did not do is convey the nub or intent of the source article as a whole. Plainly, it is ridiculous to suggest that facts may not be extracted from sources and presented alone without also including a précis of the intent and effect of the source's overall message.] sirlanz 10:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Politics of the Republic of China[edit]

Template:Politics of the Republic of China has been nominated for merging with Template:Politics of Taiwan. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wrestlingring (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why was content removed (speed of light)?[edit]

Dear JohnBlackburne

Could you please elaborate why you removed my content in the article about the speed of light.

The content was vey concise indeed, but up on the point (of course, extension possible).

The references also looked good.

Thx for enlighting me.

Darkch2 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The constancy of the speed of light is one of the most widely accepted facts in science today – so much so that our SI units depend on it. No mainstream physicist disputes this, so to have a prominent section questioning it in that article is wholly inappropriate. Apart from that it was poorly written, in a number of ways, too many to go into. Finally both references were broken generating errors. Take it to the article talk page if you want to pursue it further, but do not expect much support for such a badly worded fringe contribution.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

About the edits on March of the Volunteers[edit]

WP:NOFULLTEXT states that full text of national anthems may be listed on their respective pages. Is there another policy relevant to it? Longer anthems have been included before, if I recall. -- (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It was not just the text of the anthem though, it was multiple translations and transliterations, which occupied two whole screens when scrolling on my display. But also: copyright. The anthem is new, compared to many others, so is by default under copyright, unless there is clear evidence that the publisher(s) or author(s) are relinquishing such rights.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:NFC says that Wikipedia content should follow U.S. copyright law, and this use seems to fall under fair use law. It doesn't reduce the market value, and is for educational purposes, without profit. It is used in whole but that doesn't bar it from being fair use. -- (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair use does not allow the whole of a work to be used, only a minimal amount (WP:NFCCP#3), and then only with sufficient justification (the rest of WP:NFCCP), such as the excerpt being pertinent and subject to commentary. See also WP:NFC#Text for the particular guideline on text quotes.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Message on commons[edit]

Left you a message on commons:

Just granpa (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Sorry for me messing up the MOS talk page. Must have absent-mindedly pressed the AutoFormat button.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Help asked for.[edit]

Hello. As you are a Mathematician, and I have just studied like trigonometry (incl. addition formulas, theorems etc), geometry, polynom, derivation, integral calculus, differential calculus, logarithms,
complex numbers (incl i) and even levels of such numbers, statistics, probabilities, static mechanics , dynamic mechanics, cogwheels/gearboxes (incl. empiric formulas with some 25 variables) and other structural elements, mechanic strength/solidity etc, binary, hexadecimal etc etc.
But I do not get what's meant by "rangle", like this , its not about " i " (the imaginary solution for x^2=-1, and |2-8|= 6, absolute value), but the "|>". Could it be absolute value for a certain condition - or what ??? I have never ever encountered this before and I have tried elsewhere without any success, so if possible, could you just enlighten me briefly, if possible, please ? Boeing720 (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You should use the reference desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics, for such general questions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that link ! Could you possible agree to my criticism on our math-related articles in general, that far too few of our readers, even among the fairly math-educated, are not fully able to understand them, in many cases ? Including for example, engineers (including hardware/software-engineers) who have at least 5 years of education at university level !? Boeing720 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is not the place to ask this. If you have an issue with an article raise it on that article's talk page. A more general issue should be raised on a relevant project talk page.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, JohnBlackburne. 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)


see here removing slim.js as non-article. there is a page for slim.js pending approval. Can we add a wikipedia link instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eavichay (talkcontribs) 23:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Eavichay, links to non-articles, including articles that only exist as drafts so have yet to be approved, should not be included in the body of articles. Wait until it is approved before adding it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)