User talk:John/Archive 2012

Happy New Year!

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Help regarding User:Gregory Goble please

Works on subs

A barnstar for you!

Request respone

Paddy Power page update

South American dreadnought race FAC

3RR and incivility case

Gundred, Countess of Surrey

Yogo photo reshoot

Help regarding

user:Yworo

please

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks

Adam of Eynsham

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?

Military Historian of the Year

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

File:Awbtrawlofcorkdone.jpg listed for deletion

List of Archbishops of Canterbury

You are invited to Stanford's Wikiproject!

Etnia Barcelona

Polisher of Cobwebs John: Thanks for you effort to re-start the discussion on PoC's talk page, but, to be honest with you, I don't see PoC as an editor who I'll be interested in conversing with in the future. That's the way it goes here, as I'm sure you know, sometimes you click, sometimes you don't, and sometimes you find out that an editor you thought was problematic turns out to be OK, and vice versa. (All those things have happened to me in the course of my 6 1/2 years here.) So, I'm just going to try to stay away from PoC as much as possible, especially since the point of contention was so minor.

Thanks again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, any time. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan & Blood On The Tracks

John, Thanks for your quick response to recent edits by Glenn Berger PhD, assistant recording engineer. I agree with your diagnosis of self-promotion. ("The only thing he knew how to do/ Was to keep on keepin' on like a bird that flew/ Tangled up in blue.") Best, Mick gold (talk)

You're very welcome, thanks for the comment. --John (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair

Hi John. I have re-added cleanup tags at Ryanair with a note at the talk page indicating why. It is a bit unclear to me why you removed them in the first place, talk page or not, as it is a horrible article that needs a lot of work. Since you clearly have an interest, I hope you will enjoy addressing the issues. Regards - Cloudz679 15:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and for correctly adding your comment to the article's talk page to indicate your concerns. I am a bit mystified why you would add these tags if you are working on the article with a view to eliminate the need for them yourself. As to improving the article I will see what I can do. No promises. --John (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure an article of 90,000 bytes is too much for any one editor to fully clean up! Take care - Cloudz679 16:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan] 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

TPS alert...

Anyone an admin over on Commons? I think the contributions of this contributor might be adding copyrighted photos to commons - note the watermarks on two of the three images uploaded. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not but I asked Sandstein who is. --John (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has moved them to de-identify the person named but sees no indication of copyvio. --John (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinking of the RMS Titanic

Hi John, thanks very much for fixing issues on

Sinking of the RMS Titanic. The article is currently going through GA review, which looks like it will be completed quite soon. When it is, the intention is to nominate it for FA with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page for the anniversary of the sinking on 14/15 April. Would you be up for helping with the FA review process when the article has been nominated? Your help was invaluable on my last FA, Battle of Vukovar, and I'd love to have the opportunity to work with you again. Prioryman (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for asking. I will happily do what I can to help with this. --John (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks very much. It's passed GA now so I've nominated it for FA - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. John (talk)

Hi John, thank you for your interest in the tool. I've approved your account, please feel free to login and test the system.

As part of this beta test, we'd like everyone to test every aspect of the tool. This includes acting as blocked users - we'd like each of you to file at least two appeals and respond to them as though you are blocked. Please try to act like a blocked user new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with common terms and probably a bit frustrated at the situation.

When reviewing appeals, please act as though you are reviewing real blocks. You should be able to comment on any appeal, regardless of who has reserved it; reservations only ensure that reviewers don't send conflicting emails.

If you encounter any bugs (things not appearing to work right, and especially error messages), please file a bug report on JIRA. You will need to register an account there. New features can be suggested there as well, but please add the "after-beta" label to these so we can easily prioritize between bugs that must be fixed and features that can be added later.

Thank you again for volunteering to beta-test. The Helpful One 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romeinsekeizer

Thanks for your revert to Stonehenge of the edit by Romeinsekeizer (talk · contribs). There is some clear COI here - the user is Lex Ritman in real life (admitted on his talk page) and is writing about himself and these non-notable works in this and other articles. I have left a COI warning but you might want to keep an eye on his activities and offer guidance as appropriate. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I will keep an eye on this. --John (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't read ...

this, then you clearly should do! I haz W-t-P PJ's ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read The Tao of Pooh a few years ago and it is excellent. I believe all good children's books should contain this sort of higher wisdom, both for the children and for their parents who have to read to them--John (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

There is far more to Pooh than we were ever aware of, as kids. I've given the basic set of Winnie the Pooh, The House at Pooh Corner, When we Were Very Young, and Now We are Six to various grandchildren this past Christmas. Nobody should have to grow up without them :o) Have you read the fun Now We Are Sixty? Good for several giggles. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen that one, I will look next time I go to the library. Thank you. Besides Pooh, other great children's books I have never fallen out of love with and look forward to rediscovering with my own kids include

Alice in Wonderland, Huckleberry Finn, and several works by Ivan Southall and Nicholas Fisk. --John (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Swallows and Amazons? The Water Babies? I'm going to drown in nostalgia, if I don't stop, lol! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not read either of them I'm afraid, though I have heard of them of course. There's always Enid Blyton and Richmal Crompton as well, though I fear those may not have aged so well as the first lot I mentioned. --John (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and my own immediate offspring (the eldest of whom has just turned 30! Eeek!) were taught to read on Beatrix Potter, of course :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked BP when I was young, but my kids like it. I'm reading (almost finished) Red Rabbit by Tom Clancy, which uses Potter's terminology to describe defectors from the old Soviet Union during the Cold War. --John (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like ... an interesting mixture! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clarkson

Hi John,

you made changed to the Jeremy Clarkson article wit the comment "please only restore with valid refs ie not youtube or the series itself". I'm a very new Wikipedia user (started yesterday and these were my first changes; adding a few references and a few new cars to the ownership list). I saw that you are a Wikipedia administrator, so could you help me in telling me how can I reference the series, since there are a lot of information on the Top Gear TV series about the guys, for example what cars they drive in real life. I tried googling on how to make such references (references to TV series), but didn't find anything useful.

One example is the Ford GT, which was featured in the episode (season 7, episode 3) for about 20 minutes (each episode is 60mins long). Jeremy talked a lot about the car, how he had owned the same car twice, so at least I see it as irrefutable.

You might understand that deleting all changes that a new user has made (it took me hours to find those missing references) is very discouraging. :-(

Help me out if you can. Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyEmminence (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I had not noticed you were a new user. I suggest in the first instance reading

WP:V as this is the policy these additions were in violation of. --John (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, so if I understand the

WP:V correctly, I used the source (Jeremy Clarkson) as the source itself when citing the Top Gear episode and therefore it wasn't in accordance with the rules? One reference (Ford Fiesta 2012) uses http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/jeremy-clarkson-ford-fiesta-2012-01-06 as a reference where the source (Jeremy) told what car he had selected. How is this different and is there any way I can reference the series itself? GreyEmminence (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The difference is similar to that between what I (a non-notable Wikipedia editor) might say to my friends in the pub, and what a hypothetical newspaper or magazine might say in reporting my words. Can you see the difference? You're right in that topgear.com is not a particularly good source though. Maybe we should take that one down as well. I also have serious doubts about how useful ("encyclopedic") this entire section is. Would Britannica have such a section? I have my doubts... --John (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adriatic Sea

Hi! You did a great job copyediting the Battle of Vukovar, and I thought to ask you to take a look at the Adriatic Sea article which was recently expanded. I'd like to nominate the article as a FAC at some point, although it may be better to head for GAN first to fix any outstanding issues beforehand. My concerns regarding the article are primarily its structure and the fact that it must be riddled with grammatical errors (I'm not a native speaker of English). Could you please have a look at the article and provide some feedback? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I will be happy to have a look. --John (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America Abroad Media

John, Virginia here from America Abroad Media. Sorry if I am not following proper protocol, but our organization information is a bit out of date. Would it be improper to ask you to review and update? Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaclairmont (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be delighted to help Virginia. What is it you would like to add? --John (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear John,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Hello there. Sorry to bother you. I'm not faulting this edit of yours but didn't you forget to remove something else once you were finished? Don't worry, though, it was fixed with this edit. ClaretAsh 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thank you for clearing up after me. --John (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I saw the Apologia section on your userpage. I must say that in a community riddled with pessimism, criticism, conflict and other silliness, it is fabulous to find a user so passionate about the Project. I wish more users were as willing to show their pride and faith in Wikipedia. ClaretAsh 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you, that was very generous of you. --John (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Martyn

Hi. Its an amazing gap between the purity of his voice and the bad press he got from the mid 80s on. One thing that always strikes me; its his saving grace in my openion, is that he was the only real friend Nick Drake had and he did a of of good there, fair play. I mention this only because you said before that you admire him, and that shows a lot of taste. I saw you page moved Punk's not dead, Exploited were such a great band early on, but it didnt last, they never recaptured that initial burst of brilliance. They are still going though, actually most of the early Oi bands are still at at, plugging away. Yikes. 02:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Martyn was a genius and like many geniuses was a tortured soul. Yeah, I had that album and I think the point of the title was the double meaning. I wasn't much of a fan of the band; too rough for me. The Damned and the Clash were more my style from that era. --John (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im new to wiki...

how can i find out if i can use an image or not? I cant find the original photographer. I have asked. I have read some of the policies but I am not quite understood if its free public or fair use. Kind of confusing. thanks for any help. Chekitoutbro (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this may be difficult. Your only recourse may be to take the photo yourself. Occasionally browsing the commons or looking for free photos on Flickr can be productive. What was the photo of? --John (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks John for your speedy response. So any photos off of Flickr are okay? Chekitoutbro (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the free ones are suitable for Wikipedia. --John (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

In discussing the Arbcom Civility case at

MF talk, I shared some thoughts on your involvement - in what I hope is a positive way, as I admire the way you have handled the fallout. You may have seen it anyway, but I wanted to let you know as a courtesy. Geometry guy 22:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the note and for the time and care you have put into this whole shenanigan. --John (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited

Chinese aircraft carrier ex-Varyag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikolayev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gavin Webster

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on

criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jeancey (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Gavin Webster

Hi John, you recently removed a deletion tag from

automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Talkback

Hello, John. You have new messages at Jeancey's talk page.
Message added 23:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jeancey (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it turned out this way

I've commented at the arbitration case talk page about your proposed admonishment.[5] It seems likely that I'll be admonished as well, so maybe we can have an admonishment party?

Fatuorum 03:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Heh, nice one. Not sure what I will do with an admonishment. Looks like the arbs have missed the point as per usual. --John (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I'll do with mine. Can you guess what that might be?

Fatuorum 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I can imagine. I suppose it's like points on your license. A bit of a fart in a thunderstorm in the big scale of the challenges facing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but more potentially serious for you than for me, as you're an administrator.

Fatuorum 04:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, well. I don't use the "tools" that often anyway and I don't really derive any pleasure from the "status" it may confer for some, especially after this shambles. --John (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I ruled the world I'd have desysoped Thumperward immediately, but he seems to be escaping any sanctions. For now.

Fatuorum 04:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ramones

Hi John, is it possible you could take a look at the conversation on the Ramones page please? There's another editor there who it seems to me thinks that he owns the page among other criticisms I could offer. I'm trying to work with the person and I'm more than happy to compromise but that seems to be a waste of time.

Any input you can bring is much appreciated. Alterntiavely, if stuff on the Ramones page doesn't interest you, if you know of someone else who would be interested it would be great if you could involve them?

Socheid (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. --John (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see I was too slow on this one, for which I apologise. It was silly of you to get blocked for

making multiple reverts but I have nevertheless asked the blocking admin if leniency can be applied here. I will give you more advice when I can and again I am sorry for being too busy to deal with this earlier. Never edit-war; it is one of the few really clear and easy ways to get blocked I'm afraid. --John (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi John,

Thanks for your reply. I see that you intervened re the block placed upon and I thank you for that also and the good intent behind this.

Could you give me some more clarification re this edit war stuff please? Throughout that particular dispute I on numerous occasions did what seemed to be fair and reasonable re consensus and collaborative working such as:-

• request input from others via the punk project talk page twice and once from the rock music project talk page
• request input from other people in wikipedia such as the ping to you earlier today, requests to gwen gale, other people who I have pinged individually

Also I don't understand how when the other person repeatedly stonewalls my edits with blanket reverts and very abrupt comments that indicate no attempt at working together (have you read some of the comments, this person thinks he is god), this is deemed acceptable. When I undo edits when there was support from another person for what I said, it is deemed edit warring even though there was no other support for the person making my comments the majority view. Then when today other people have made comments against the edits I made, I accepted that as consensus and pushed the matter no further. Why is it I get blocked and the other person doesn't? This seems very unfair. I don't for a second expect to have my point accepted all the time and I have consistently been happy to go with majority view. That isn't the case for the other person but the other person seems to be regarded as the good guy in this and I have condemned as the villain.

Thanks again for sparing some time and effort on this earlier.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a pleasure to be able to help you. One thing to keep in mind is that these things aren't done quickly; a more patient approach will bear dividends. Another is that folk who have written a good quality article like that one tend to be defensive about their work. I quite agree you were treated badly there, hence my intervention. I said at article talk that there is much for all involved to learn from what happened and this includes you. A majority isn't always equivalent to a consensus either. Thanks for all the good work you do; hope that this was not too bruising for you and that you can learn from it and move on. --John (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation request

Hi, I know we've been talking elsewhere at the ArbCom case talkpage, but I'd like to make it official here.

John, I understand that you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, both under your current name and when you were known as Guinnog. You have over 100,000 edits, and have been an administrator since 2006. However, I feel that recent events have shown that you are not using your administrator access with the necessary good judgment.

On December 21, 2011,

Blocking policy, were extremely disruptive, and contributed to what became a major arbitration case. The arbitrators are currently voting on a proposed decision, and are leaning towards a formal admonishment of your actions, but even so, you do not seem to understand the seriousness of what you did, and are not acknowledging that an admonishment is appropriate.[14]

In my opinion, an admonishment is the minimum that should happen, and in actuality, your administrator access should be removed. Whether or not the arbitrators choose to do this, remains to be seen. In the meantime, I am formally requesting that you resign as an administrator. Sincerely, --Elonka 19:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" and "formally" in what sense, Elonka? Geometry guy 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How nice of you to take all this trouble on a poison pen letter for me, Elonka, I truly didn't know you cared. You may not know that I used to belong to the administrators open to recall scheme, and if I was still a member I would advise you to use that mechanism. When I left it in 2009 however, it was in large part due to witnessing your shameless dishonesty and duplicity in promising in your RfA to resign if enough people asked you to, and then immediately defaulting on this seemingly solemn undertaking as soon as someone tried to use it against you. As well as impressing me with the uselessness of a voluntary recall process, it also left me with the distinct impression of you as an untrustworthy person. Since your involvement in the Malleus-civility case I have not only renewed this impression of you as being slippery and careless of ethical behaviour, but have developed it further, as I have now seen the vindictive and nasty side of you as well. You are, to me, the epitome of everything an admin should not be. You do little to no content improvement work but instead spend your time and energy sniffing around criticising others' conduct, seemingly mindless of the impression of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness that this gives to those witnessing your behaviour. I was thinking about handing in my bit if criticised to the same degree as the other admins involved in the case, and if somebody whose opinion I respected had made this request I would certainly have given it serious consideration. Reading those words from you has helped me to decide that if I am to be desysoped it will have to be by Arbcom, so in a way I suppose I owe you thanks for helping me. Nevertheless, I would respectfully ask you to please, never, ever post here again for any reason. Any further baiting, badgering or vindictive machinations you feel the need to undertake can be conducted elsewhere. Thanks, --John (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Sorry, but I find this to be getting ridiculous. A block of John was not even worthy of consideration in the recent action, and anything that happened in or around the heat of those proceedings must be balanced against John's record (which demonstrates him to be one of the best editors and administrators at Wikipedia). The Arbitrators were fully cognisant of John's history and worth as a Wikipedian, and we should all do likewise—and move on. GFHandel ♬  19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this civility case will be closed very soon, as it seems to have served whatever purpose it could and the atmosphere surrounding seems to be becoming increasingly less helpful.

Fatuorum 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The last minute flurry of activity can be one of the most unseemly aspects of an Arbcom case. However, it is also an opportunity to spot editors manipulating the situation, and arbitrators who are easily manipulated. Geometry guy 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world!

That has such people in it!

--John (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion, I myself tend to agree that, until and unless ArbCom specifically requests removal of adminship, resignation is possibly/probably uncalled for. ArbCom can, and has, requested or required in the past that individuals lose their admin status, or take part in a confirmation RfA. They do not seem to have done so in this case, and I believe that they are probably better judges of what rises to that level than we are, having been specifically elected for that purpose, among others. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not too discouraged...

Talk:Sprota Looks to be getting pretty heated. Agricolae is generally a good calm editor - with a firm grasp of policy. I had a bit of a run in with the other two editors at Gundred, Countess of Surrey ... but I just walked away rather than continue to argue. Any chance you can use your "oil on stormy waters" approach? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, I will have a look when I can. --John (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Barnstar

		Saints Star Award
		Things don't always work out the way they should in here in the short-term, but they tend to work out better over the longer haul. Whether you're admonished, named and shamed, belittled, targeted or anything else that comes along in this place, there are still folks with reason in here, and they/we know you to be a man of character, trustworthiness, introspection, and moral integrity. What matters more: the truth, or the labels? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandy, that's appreciated. You're definitely one of the people I value in this place. --John (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there...Modernist (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I think you probably know that the barnstar in question is generally for people who contribute to saints-related content, and probably isn't directly appropriate in this instance. Naughty, naughty girl. ;) However, I myself agree that it is probably generally appropriate in this instance, given that this editor has had to put up with, well, rather a lot over time, including (as he and I know) some really ridiculous accusations, and still tries to see the best of other contributors. At least in the standard Catholic tradition, the one I myself know best, I agree John might be among those who come closest to possessing the behavioral attributes, including forgiveness, of those who are most generally referred to as saints. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Modernist and John for your kind comments. The only thing that worries me here; don't you have to be dead to qualify for sainthood? --John (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't know that-- I went through my barnstar page and copied the one I thought most appropriate, and I didn't get it for work on saints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really appreciated receiving it from you and I am sorry to be flippant about it. I would certainly never claim to be a saint, just an honest joe trying his best. Thanks again Sandy. --John (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as one of the editors who deals with that content, I personally have no objections to seeing it given out to individuals who have displayed "saintly" qualities, like, well, almost infinite forbearance, like John here. And, I guess I could see how Sandy, having to deal with the sometimes, um, heated conversations regarding FA, probably has displayed similar characteristics. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely kind of you both. --John (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your sainthood may be about to be challenged by

Fatuorum 00:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Goodness me. Let me have a look when I get a moment.--John (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply ] >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

An arbitration case regarding Civility enforcement has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.
2. Thumperward (talk · contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee.
3. John (talk · contribs) is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.
4. talk · contribs
   ) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. Further, Malleus Fatuorm is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.
5. Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective.
6. All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.
7. The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.
8. Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee:

Discuss this

Happy days. You stand admonished, but you did the right thing. No one was going to come out of this unscathed anyway. Trouts make really good eats. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a terrible waste of everybody's time. I think this Arbcom is even more pusillanimous and disorganised than the last one. Volunteers don't have to be amateurs. Thank you for your kind message of support; I wish I could say I have learned a lot from the case or that I have developed as a Wikipedian, but sadly most of what I have learned has been about the pompous and inept failings of our court of highest appeal. Never mind. --John (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The finding against you is disheartening... you admit to one thing minor thing and get admonished for something completely unrelated? I am incredulous. I have mixed feelings about the findings towards Hawkeye/MF findings, but they blew it with you.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed but not surprised. It was a waste of time taking the case if they weren't going to issue decisive guidance on what to do when someone is inappropriately blocked. As it stands, if someone else I know (you for example) were indefinitely blocked by a rogue admin, the case suggests that I wouldn't be allowed to unblock you without a long discussion at AN/I. It's also very unfortunate that the hard-of-thinking crowd focused on Malleus's use of the word cunt when taunted by Spitfire, something even he wasn't disputing was uncivil, and not the actual incident he was first blocked for which started the whole sorry circus rolling. Ironically the initial allegation he made, that some (unnamed) admins are "dishonest cunts", is not only unquestionably true, ("an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary), but has been strongly confirmed by the conduct of several in this very case. Far from clarifying either of the main issues that people felt needed clarifying, it's been a strange exercise in justifying the predetermined "punishments" which were arrived at first. I could have predicted on Christmas Day that Thumperward and I would get some kind of slap on the wrist, Hawkeye would be desysoped and Malleus would be topic-banned. Some of the contortions some people have performed to arrive at these verdicts have been highly dishonest. Arbcom has been the weakest link in this community for years now, and there is no prospect of it ever getting better. I still like this place but the appetite for drama that some editors have is outrageous, and we don't seem very good as a community at solving it. This was another missed opportunity to do so, in my opinion. --John (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case had a very Alice in Wonderland feel about it. It did indeed seem obvious what the outcome would be long before any of the so-called evidence was collected. Which begs the question of why bother collecting it in the first place? Some editors such as Balloonman, and especially Karanacs, went to a great deal of trouble to present the facts, but they went largely ignored in the face of preconceptions and the wisdom of the mob. I could even have predicted which arbitrators would vote for my being banned, no matter what the evidence.

Fatuorum 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

Sincerely, Kelidimari Kelidimari (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you are welcome. --John (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very muchly! =^.^= Kelidimari (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing me how it works here on Wikipedia, enjoy hiding controversial facts about corporations. I had changed my sources, yet you still think rather then making any comments like the good users you just to remove my section. Hope I can put a smile on your face by letting you know I see how it works and I want nothing to do with it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Navstev0 (talk • contribs)

I'm awfully sorry you feel that way. I believe three editors have removed the material you were trying to add, on grounds of

reliable sourcing. I think there is a good explanation on the article talk about why this material, sourced as it is, is not suitable for this encyclopedia article. Nevertheless I would not automatically be against some kind of well-sourced and appropriately written mention of this incident. I will comment at article talk about this and I urge you not to be completely discouraged or exasperated (some of your edit summaries have been a bit over the top as others have mentioned). Hang in there, try some other articles besides this one. There is a lot of work to be done if you do want to help out. Best wishes, --John (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

On the subject of Thatcher, I fail to see why you restored such a huge amount of information that is so clearly problematic? I've outlined my reasons on the talk page as you requested. Rgds, Jprw (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current formulation was arrived at by

reliable sources. In order to change it we would need to form a new consensus at article talk. --John (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi John. This edit incorrectly changed humourous to humorous on a page with a {{

Thanks for your communication and for caring about spelling. However, you have fallen for a common error; "humourous" is not correct in any dialect of English. Although "humour" is correct in British English, we have "humorous" and "humorist" etc. I'll change it back. Once again I appreciate your attention to detail. --John (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually consider this and subsequently consulted my (albeit, pretty old) OED and found it to be in both forms... I shall concede, however, given the results shown in various on-line dictionaries that you are correct in this matter; apologies for the hassle!

stoned 09:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Additionally, did you do this with a script? Most of those dates were populated by reflinks and other automated tools and I'd like to perform this conversion myself if automated. Thanks again,

stoned 09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Never mind, nabbed it from your skin! 11:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a great script, enjoy using it. Nice to meet you and let me know if I can ever be of any help to you. --John (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[15] Either I explode (which I'm sure would be the preferred option for some) or I have to trust in that rarest of commodities, common sense. I know how GAN works, but I'm less sure how GAR works. Geometry guy's tried to explain it to me a few times but I still don't get it. Maybe the right thing to do after all would have been to go on to FAC; at least then some politico wouldn't have been able to flex his muscles by arbitrarily delisting the article, apparently without knowing exactly why except for "she was a bad person".

I agree that was incredibly rude. It's a contentious topic and it was always vulnerable to this kind of politically motivated attack. --John (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you both having trouble with this editor User:Jprw? Because he/she is removing important details from the Clint Eastwood article and arrogantly seems to think they are right and seem to be looking down on the article as if its crap. Apparently his highest grossing films and Dirty Harry films are not worthy of mentioning in the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I was having trouble with him, yet. He seems very opinionated and perhaps not that collegial. We all have our bad moments. It's interesting though if this is a pattern of behaviour across several articles; I had assumed he was a Thatcher acolyte and wanted our article to reflect his views. Ironically just before that I was getting stick from someone else who said the article was too positive towards her. You can't please everyone I suppose. Maybe worth keeping an eye on though. --John (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All too often here it seems like you can't please anyone, but I noticed that Clint Eastwood spat earlier, and I think Dr. Blofeld is right to be concerned.

Fatuorum 19:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. When you recently edited Robert Fripp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heroes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, as you blocked

I am looking. --John (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I'm Sorry about the trouble with my latest edit to the Wikipedia entry for the Nazca Lines. However, I am at a loss as to how the article I linked violates policy. It is not self promotion. I have a site that gives lots of information for free to educate people about primitive skills and history. The article in question (which I attempted to link at Wikipedia) gives rare information that speaks to the history of the lines, the research that has been done over the decades, possible meanings, and describes a full sized replica of the lines which was created with the kinds of tools that would have been used by the original creators of said lines. All in all, extremely valuable information for anyone wishing to understand the full significance of these extraordinary works of art. I have seen other links on Wikiipedia which are at actual businesses, etc. I would just like to understand how my linking to it is self promotion or clearly how it violates policy. I wish only to educate people about the nature of the lines. Have you visited the link? Thank you for your time. P.S. Forgive if this isn't the proper way to present this question to you. I've never done a Wikipedia edit before and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to communicate with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earp1957 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I will have a look at your link and let you know my thoughts. --John (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and I agree the material is useful. I found it more useful to go with the original than the reprint. --John (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow! When I first asked them permission to put that article up years ago, they didn't have it up themselves! Didn't know they had put it up. Well, the important thing is that this great information is up for people to reference and learn from. Thanks. ~~earp~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earp1957 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, can you direct me to the article that specifies why flag icons are not permitted on the Lisbon article? The use of flag icons on twinning subjects seems to be common on larger city articles than this, and I can see this turning into the subject of future edit-wars on other articles, if I was to start dewikifying in a similar matter. I would appreciate some clarification and supporting proofs in order to justify this type of action. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. There was never any consensus to use flags this way in the first place; they were added willy-nilly and as you point out they have spread like a rash over many settlement articles.

WP:MOSICON has long deprecated uses of flags which are purely decorative, and we had a relatively recent RfC which was pretty conclusive on the subject, so there should be no need for anybody to edit-war over this issue. Thanks for noticing my work; why not join me in removing these unencyclopedic decorations wherever they are being misused? --John (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive ! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

[16] How could there possibly be any confusion in the mind of anyone with even a basic grasp of English? I'm completely ill-equipped to deal with that kind of crap without calling it crap. Or perhaps even fucking crap.

I have to write professionally for people with varying skills in reading, and I have to be honest enough to say that when more than one person makes a misreading like that, maybe the wording needs to be clarified. Any thoughts? I also think there is a good point being made there about the nickname; maybe there's a way to get both explanations in rather than just one. --John (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts, addressing your points in order, are that nobody with any degree of English comprehension could mistake what is being said; perhaps those two were looking at an earlier version of the article?

As to your second point, there also seems to be some confusion. There's no doubt that the nickname was given to Thatcher by the Soviets, and that's adequately documented. If anyone wants to go further and argue that it stuck because of Thatcher's policies while she was in power then they have to provide reliable sources that say so, otherwise the chronology doesn't work.

Fatuorum 23:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

On the first point, I think we all have our areas and levels of competency; on the second, I believe that such sources have arguably now been provided. I shall suggest a way forward in article talk. --John (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I thought you might like a change and have a look at Victoria Silvstedt? As you will see at that link, a consensus for wording was agreed, however (as has been happening for a while), an IP editor will not accept the situation and continues a slow-war edit at the article. If you consider it appropriate, could the page please be protected for a while? Cheers. GFHandel ♬  19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and I do not think it is a pressing case for semi-protection at present. The information that is being added is not especially defamatory and is sourced, even if I am inclined to agree with you that it needs a better source. I will keep an eye on how this develops and reserve the right to change my mind if things change there. Thank you for thinking of me. --John (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. I don't think that the information is particularly damaging either, and I was one of the editors who helped to word the text that a number of editors wish to see in the article. The trouble is that there is a single IP editor who simply removes the text every time it is inserted into the article. GFHandel ♬  20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected after all. If a strong consensus is demonstrable in talk it should be less of a problem to defend that version against attrition. It may be though that there is still a discussion to be had. We'll see. --John (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

Best wishes, Socheid (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Socheid. It is good to hear from you. I am sorry to see you are at a reduced level of participation. WP:3RR is one not to mess with. I will always be here for you as and when you resume editing. --John (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit changing "cruse" to "cruise", the original spelling was correct. I know "Cruse" isn't the most common word. Just wanted to give you a heads up.--Bkwillwm (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my error and for your courtesy in letting me know. --John (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the iTunes link. There is no policy against linking to iTunes and from what I can tell this is the only place with a complete listing of her songs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No,

WP:ELNO as well as common sense dictate that links like this should not be used on Wikipedia. Sorry. --John (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Specifically, #5 in the list of links to avoid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Same for Amazon. External links should only be used in general when they give something to the article that it would need if it was a good article. Sorry again. --John (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That page isn't directly selling the music. You have to actually open up the iTunes program in order to buy any of the songs. If there were another page that provided a complete listing of her music I would use it, but that just isn't the case here. I have looked for any other page that would list all her music, but this is the best I could find.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's really true and there is no other reliable non-commercial source which lists all her music then I would say that the information does not belong on Wikipedia. --John (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned here. It pertains to the harassment from another user I mentioned before.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courtesy in informing me. --John (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. I wondered why this edit was considered appropriate when it unlinked a number of works, including The Adelphi which I don't believe are common terms, particularly to a global audience. Could you let me know why you did this so I can understand what you're trying to do please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Per

WP:OVERLINK we definitely do not need multiple links to the same target; one or two will suffice. Thanks for taking an interest in my work. --John (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, but wrong, because it's a sortable table so every instance of a linkable item should be linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --John (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because as soon as a sortable table is sorted by any column other than the default, the linked item won't necessarily appear first. Common practice in sortable tables is to link every linkable item every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, you quoted OVERLINK, where it says "if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes"... I'd appreciate it if you could undo any such edits in any sortable tables you may have made. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can explain why having the same link repeated over 100 times is "helpful for readers", having thoroughly read and digested the spirit of OVERLINK. Alternatively showing a recent central consensus for this style of overlinking would also suffice. --John (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I'll undo your edit on this featured list as it goes against the spirit of OVERLINK's ability to allow us to be helpful to readers. Your edit here is not helpful to readers who may have sorted things differently or may be half way down a long list and need to link to a particular article. A pity someone of your experience is showing such an attitude to helping our readers. Thanks for your interest in my comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit stupid, to be honest. I would be interested to see your considered response to my serious questions once you have got over your fit of amour-propre, in article talk though rather than here. Until then, adios. --John (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid to you, but not to the entire

WP:FLC community who routinely do this. Of course, your opinion is important, but I've responded to your "article talk" addition, so let's head there duderino. Until then, adios. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I was reading about the forthcoming 2012 London Mayoral Election and noticed that the article mentioned the independent candidate being a former senior civil servant and linked to an article about them. I clicked the link and was somewhat surprised to find a rather long and comprehensive article about Siobhan Benita which reads more like a CV than a Wikipedia article. I'm not really sure what the appropriate thing to do now would be as my involvement with Wikipedia is pretty much restricted to fixing typos and adding references so this is a bit out of my depth- hence this message.

The history page for the article shows that it was created on 12th March 2012 by an editor called VincentBenita and that the same user has contributed a large number of edits to it. I suspect that there are a number of issues with the article- it strikes me as an attempt by a would-be politician to use Wikipedia as an electioneering tool, I would question the inclusion of some of the external links such as "Follow Siobhan Benita's (sic) on Twitter", there's a long list of news reports about coverage of her election campaign which doesn't really seem to serve any great purpose than raise awareness of her campaign and I have a strong suspicion that some of the editors who have worked on the page are less than impartial about the subject.

I'm hoping that you might take a look at it yourself and decide whether its current content is appropriate for Wikipedia and/or what needs to be changed/done to bring it into line. I apologise sincerely for dropping this on you but I'm way out of my depth and feel it deserves the attention of someone with more knowledge of the way Wikipedia operates as well as more influence within the organisation. I have no issue with Ms Benita and indeed had never heard of her until I read the article about the 2012 London Mayoral Election, however it concerns me that something that looks- at least to me- like electioneering should try to be passed off as an encyclopaedia article. I would appreciate your opinion and advice on what to do next.

Thank you. IrishPete 02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a hack at it and left a COI warning on the article creator's talk page. Thanks for letting me know and tell me if you think it needs more than this. --John (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that's a lot better, much more encyclopaedic and less like a promotional piece. IrishPete 10:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the edit history of this article. The page for the band formed by former The Verve band members in 2009 (plenty of online source to back this up) has been hijacked over the past month or 2 by an uknown New York band to promote themselves, who are pretending to have formed in 2006 to try and justify it - but there are no sources for them before 2011 anyway and are obviously not notable in any way.Ta. Edit - Should also note that this NY band have also hacked into the bands Twitter account (as has been mentioned on the Verve members bands Facebook).

92.5.49.128 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and warned. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You actually reverted the wrong edit! :) You just reverted it to the spam link (which I have realised I accidently kept in the article). I reverted the article back earlier today to what it should be, but am sure it will be changed again over night from a NY area IP address. If you go through the edit history you will see there has been a protracted edit war of people reverting the vandals who are replacing the article with spam for their own act - any chance of protecting the page?

92.5.36.155 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this in some detail, I think that possibly neither band really passes

deletion discussions. --John (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Have restored multiple references. If you check the edit history of the user who has edited today, you'll see they have repeatedly removed such links from the article and changed links to their band. They have hacked into and stolen the bands twitter page, so it seems like this will go on for some time unless the page is protected. 92.5.44.3 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I saw. I have no opinion on any alleged hacking of other pages. We can't use twitter and other social media here anyway. Thanks for restoring those refs. --John (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - if you check out this link http://friendswelove.com/blog/the-black-ships/ The Verve are listed as one of their influences. So they've nicked the band name, and are now systematically trying to remove the original band from online existance! Crazy, but they're clearly trying to target Verve fans in this campaign of theirs. 92.5.44.3 (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're still at it. There are 2 IPs involved, both of which should be blocked. Would appreceite it if you would revert the last edit and hopefully protect the page? I realise that will stop me from editing further, but it really needs it.

92.5.44.3 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted and semi-protected. --John (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They've now logged into their vandalism only account and have continued editing using that - what a nightmare! And they're now accusing you of being a vandal! Just been investigating their edit patterns, and originally they set about just replacing the links to their own band pages, and then eventually changed the whole article - very sneaky.

92.5.44.3 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am willing to

vandalism to describe this situation as I am sure they are just trying to improve our coverage same as you and me. --John (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You clear try and see the good in everyone then! :) I fail to see the good in anyone trying to steal a bands online presence! 92.5.44.3 (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 days and nothing has been added to The Black Ships (US band) to justify it being there. They are un-notable (as is the article on their album) and have been involved in a campaign of hijacking another more notables artists web presence (who will have a studio album out this year, major press to go along with it). Surely it needs to be nominated for deletion now? 92.5.51.89 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree and have nominated it for deletion via the

proposed deletion route. --John (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello John. I took a look at this report you made at AE, since it is now the oldest one on the board. Do I understand that you are requesting a sanction of MONGO just for the edit summary in this edit?: "revert...he said she said...I say this is wrong article to be agenda pushing...by well established CT POV pusher." You also mention edit warring. It is not clear how you can see him as being in an edit war here, since that is his only edit of the September 11 attacks article in the month of March. Is it possible that your concern is based on more than just this one edit, but on an overall pattern? Have you expressed your concern about this in more detail anywhere else? A single diff seems thin to justify an indefinite topic ban from 9/11, unless it's a really terrible diff.

MONGO had a checkered history in the past, but his last block was in 2008 (i.e. four years ago). It seems like he remains on an 'indefinite civility restriction' per

It is possible that your AE filing was intended to open a general review by admins of the actions of several editors on 9/11. That kind of request may lead to a quirky outcome unless at least one admin is willing to perform a very thorough study. Admins at AE are not famous for their long attention spans. A more complete request from you would have helped to direct things. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I will try to finalise this request in the next 24 hours, if you do not feel that the edit summary on its own would be worthy of sanctions on an editor who is on civility parole and has been persistently problematic over time in this area. --John (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the request page, thank you for your attention. --John (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's Silvstedt's claim of earning millions a year only fluffs the article, does not contribute to the actual facts, and should be removed. 71.183.42.144 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at this later today. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --John (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste too much of your time on this John. This is (no doubt) the same POV anonymous editor whose persistent warring prompted a discussion that resulted in a consensus wording in the article. I'm quite confident that as soon as your protection of the page expires (in three days), the same boring cycle of vandalism will resume. By the way, the consensus wording (established by at least four editors) begins: "According to the Finnish broadsheet newspaper ...", so WP is reporting the text of what is considered a reliable source, and warning our readers that the information is "according to". Until further sources emerge, there really is no need for the (anticipated) resumption in edit-warring hostilities for which this IP has demonstrated a propensity. GFHandel ♬  21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend going with the talk page consensus then. --John (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I predict many sleepers editing this article in the future. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on it, don't worry. --John (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have accomplished. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! – From: Northamerica1000(talk) 21:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100,000? Well, that's not bad, I guess. ;-) Congrats! bd2412 T 21:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the kind thoughts. --John (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive ! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Snowlocust (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. --John (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited The Black Ships (US band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello John. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated DR goes to Wikimania! 01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi John. We're having tremendous trouble at List of the verified oldest people. Could the page be protected for a while (perhaps also for edits by non-autoconfirmed editors, or some such)? I'm not sure what types of protection there are, but vandalising edits are coming thick and fast from both IP accounts and a recently-created account.

As an aside, would you prefer I didn't ask you directly for this sort of help? I know you are always willing to help, but is there a different mechanism you would prefer I use? E.g. should I be placing a tag on the affected article's talk page requesting help from a pool of available admins? If so, what is the best approach?

Anyhow, as always, thanks for your assistance. GFHandel ♬  21:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If I'm ever too busy to help I will say so and/or pass on your request to another admin or a board. In this instance I semi-protected two weeks and indef-blocked a vandalism-only user. --John (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I know it's hardly my place to be lecturing on temperance, but would you reconsider "incompetent and calculated to raise drama" in your latest post to ANI? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of is is perfect and your post here was a model of how to do it, as Courcelles' block was a model of how not to do it. We all have things we feel strongly about when editing and sometimes we express ourselves in ways that others find hurtful. I believe there is a middle line between California prissiness and the language of the betting shop. Thank you for your considered and honest responses at your talk and at AN/I. --John (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I have a lot of respect for you, but I'm at a loss why you think it's a failing of Courcelles that he didn't

That was only a part of it. Courcelles should know better that a one-sided block like this would not lead to anything good. I am more concerned that the block was punitive and aimed at an editor with whom he had been in conflict, and that no understanding was shown about how inappropriate the block was, even after several editors queried it. Instead, Courcelles accused Steve of wheel warring for undoing the block (which it very clearly was not) then went off-line. If you're going to make a controversial block (or unblock) you should be prepared to account for what you did and answer reasonable questions about it. --John (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of that (and I strongly agree with your point that accusing Steve of wheel-warring misinterprets the blocking policy) but I remain baffled by the complaint that he wasn't templated. I wouldn't have inquired about this at all except that I've seen it brought up by another editor as well. Anyway, it saddens me that we've lost one admin already over this lame edit war and we very well may lose another. 28bytes (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should notify you that your !vote has been struck out. If this is seen as canvassing, and I am trying to phrase this as neutrally as possibly, I will self-revert.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be seen as canvassing? Ideally the editor striking it out would have informed me as a courtesy. It so happens that I already noticed. Being an Arb with a recall criterion that elastic is getting awfully close to not having a recall procedure at all, but I am fine with whatever happens happening. In the end the outcome is clearly up to Courcelles' conscience, and that remains an unknown quantity. --John (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it could be seen as canvassing because I already certified, and it could be construed as an attempt to bring a supporter of the recall back into the dispute, which is not what I intended.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 12:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Canvassing would only be if you contacted multiple people to ask them to participate. Letting one person know in a neutral way could never be canvassing, in my opinion. --John (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA - and for your congratulations. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I hope you enjoy the tools. --John (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,

you may want to take a look at this exchange [17] -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, looks like somebody is annoyed. I won't block for that, but somebody else may. --John (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see The Rambling Man has given him an early bath. Nice work. Thanks for letting me know, TRPOD. --John (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I went to

I took a quick hack; it probably needs more. --John (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re your edit [18]

Are you certain that you want to be the editor who restored content so blatantly in violation of POLICY

I think we disagree over the interpretation of this policy. I am sure a solution will be found. My impression is that most participants in the discussion so far disagreed with you. I don't think it is worth getting upset over. --John (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

Hello, John. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

Thanks, I will take a look.--John (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, it was very interesting. --John (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you willingly chastised me about PA's, I request that you inform the other party about the inflammatory effect of making unfounded accusations of Wikihounding.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "chastise" you, I warned you that continuing to flout our rules about personal attacks would get you blocked. Which other party do you mean, and what do you see as the essential problem between you? --John (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was inappropriately reacting to a section titled "Following me around?" which certainly was not the case. I primarily edit I-P topics and it was sheer coincidence that our paths converged.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief glance I see two other people sparring with you there. Would you like me to message them both? If you would, could you let me know what exactly the problem is with their behaviour(s)? I saw your PA, that's easy enough to spot. I know that (almost) every PA has an antecedent. Would the antecedent in this case be these two editors asking you these questions on your talk page? --John (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, one other editor, and even that is questionable as they seem to operate like conjoined twins, when it comes to impeaching my editorial probity. I am sufficiently conciliated by your statement that "almost every PA has an antecedent", as I certainly feel that I was provoked in this instance by a distinct lack of good faith, and I do not request any further action. Thank you for not telling me to shut up and stop whining.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome; I know all too well after six years and 111,000 edits here how tempers can rise. Please let me know if I can ever assist you in the future. --John (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

Hi John. I've added a bit of additional background on the reasons I believe the page move is justified. Would a direct message from the article's subject also have any effect on your opinion? I could have him contact you. Barring that, I could suggest he do an OTRS, but I'd prefer to get consensus on the talk page instead. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'd be honoured to hear direct from him as I am a great fan, but no, it wouldn't really affect my opinion on how this article should be named. --John (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, I'll stick to providing other requested materials that might affect your opinion. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review the end of this thread, as I do not feel I am deserving of these personal attacks.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to look at this later this evening UTC. --John (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look and I see no overt personal attacks but some heated conversation on a delicate subject in which editors pointed out that you have previously declared having a point of view on the subject. The best I can do is keep an eye on things going forward, though I reserve the right to have a quiet word with one of the other participants in the discussion. I think you are taking the right line, by concentrating on the quality of sources and debating the subject rather than the editors. Sorry I couldn't be more help on this occasion. --John (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I left Dlv999 a polite message. Unfortunately to some extent by editing in these difficult areas one runs the risk of passions becoming heightened. It's all the more important to behave scrupulously and we can all have lapses. I think you are doing great there. I will continue to think about it. Thanks for contacting me. --John (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, after you previously looked into a discussion regarding myself and Ankh, I respect your opinion and would value your opinion on Ank's comment in the last paragraph of this post. [23] Dlv999 (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am inclined to agree that this is unhelpful. I have asked AnkhMorpork if he will refactor the comment. --John (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And he has now refactored. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. --John (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Beatsie Boy fellow is dead, and it's been confirmed by multiple reliable sources. He cannot be listed as a current member of the group any longer. Keith Moon is not a current member of The Who. Brian Jones is no longer a current member of The Stones. 24.112.139.6 (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. It is terribly sad. --John (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short version here and now gone. There has been hounding from a group of editors with whom Alarbus was friends. Personally I'd like to see the issue dropped because it's time to move on. People have lost a lot of skin over this.

Gosh. But what does any of this have to do with me? --John (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. But I do understand Sandy's concern in regards to some of the people who have been posting to that talk page and their relationship to Jack Merridew. It's a very long story and not one I want to dredge up.

talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Huh. Well, I think the MoS question should be clarified before we get any more nonsense like this, lest we have the date delinking Arbcom all over again. --John (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. The issue is that there have been serious problems with hounding and when 2 or 3 editors who are Merridew supporters suddenly show up on a page tended by an editor who has previously been hounded by Merridew, the waters get muddied, unfortunately. That's what's happening. See this for example.

talk) 22:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a shame, and it's even more of a shame when good editors like me and Malleus get dragged in as collateral damage. Usually the only times people talk about a cabal here they are joking; it's weird to see someone I usually respect throw the term around so loosely. --John (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Ceoil, who has taken more than his fair share of shit because of Merridew and it's a situation that destroyed our working relationship and friendship. That's exactly the problem with hounding and how things like this become amplified and the underlying issues become secondary.

talk) 22:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've actually met RexxS, one of those being accused of being a member of this cabal, and I found him to be perfectly reasonable and good company. The only thing we disagreed slightly about was Rlevse, and I really can't sign up to the idea that he's been harassing anyone. But what I can say categorically is that the Merridew business is absolutely nothing to do with me; I barely even know what it's about, and it's certainly not a factor in my opposition to Gimmetoo's date formatting preferences.

Fatuorum 22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Och. There was no way I could have known any of this backstory when aligning date formats while copyediting then seeing my changes reverted. Maybe SG needs to AGF a bit here? --John (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Sandy has accused either you or me of doing anything underhand has she? I'm trying to remember how I came across this date formatting issue (maybe a posting on here?), but it sure as Hell wasn't because I'd been recruited by any cabal.

Fatuorum 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think she has, and also called me an "abusive admin". I haven't heard that one for a while. In other news, I was delighted to see Hibs not getting relegated earlier this evening, so it isn't all bad. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I was pleased to see that Wigan managed to avoid relegation from the Premier League this evening. Why on Earth can't they play as well at the start of the season as they do at the end?

Fatuorum 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Bad news for Blackburn though. Why are there so many placenames starting "Black" anyway? --John (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues: the date issue and the issue of the hounding. From what I've read at that page RexxS has good reasons to comment, but also RexxS was very clear that I needed to put a leash on Ceoil and RexxS was extremely hard on me re Merridew. Because Gimmetoo also has history with Merridew, the two have become mixed up. I don't think either of you are part of a cabal - you're reacting to the date issue and as John said couldn't have known the rest. And as I've said, I'd prefer to let it be.

talk) 22:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)r[reply

]

Regarding this edit:[24], You might be interested to know that this subject is currently under discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Your input would be welcome as we build a consensus, with the possible outcome of resolving this edit war. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove this highly offensive post?[25] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it offensive? It describes exactly what you are trying to do. --John (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly am I trying to do? Explain policy to you? I would think a "thank you" would have been a more appropriate response. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you posted here is the exact equivalent, in Wikipedia terms, of the one-drop rule. I believe using ethnic and religious categories to label people who do not label themselves to be the moral equivalent of the yellow badge. I stand by what I said and will not redact it. I have only just noticed that you attempted to remove my post. Please, never ever do that. Take a good look at your own behaviour before you try to lecture others. --John (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being Jewish is nothing to be ashamed of, John. Now, you're free to believe in whatever you want to believe in, but here on Wikipedia we follow

WP:BLP. Please try to remember that, and for heaven's sake, don't blame the messenger. You may have the last word; I'm removing your talkpage from my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No more than being black or being gay; none of these are things to be ashamed of either, but we only apply them to living or recently dead people with the greatest of circumspection out of respect for those people's rights. I am intimately familiar with the three policies you link to in your message; is there a specific aspect of one of them that you think pertains to the disagreement we have had? I assure you that I do not blame you for being wrong on this, and I would far rather we were able to reach a working compromise than think I had scared you away with the force of my argument. I remain convinced that I am right on this matter, but I also remain open to future conversations with you about it. --John (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

since I sent you an email .. I thought perhaps it was only right to say what I think on-wiki. I applaud your work ,, and I think you do well at speaking the truth. I admire your efforts, and I'll be proud to support you. —

]

Thank you. Once again, I really appreciate it. --John (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to explain the reverted changes

Regarding your edit:[26], I would like to explain that this is not promotion. Behind this correction there is a legal problem. Harmonic Drive is a registered brand mark in Europe as well as in the US-market and not allowed to use it as a generic term (see also the german side of wikipedia/Harmonic Drive. The only reason I added the information that there is a company called Harmonic Drive LLC is that there have to be a connection to the key word "harmonic drive" and the explanation why sometimes it's called a harmonic drive gear. Sorry if this is not the correct way to contact you but I'm not familiar in doing this on wikipedia--HDSC (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2012 (CET)

No worries, I replied at your talk. --John (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. --HDSC (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2012 (CET)

Hi John, I hope I did it correct now. I will wait for comments. Thanks again. --HDSC (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (CET)

Ping

John, I'm going to be traveling soon and want to archive my talk. I haven't heard back from you after things became heated. From reviewing your talk, I saw you weren't aware of everything involved, and I hope you now understand the backstory, and we can move on. Or hopefully, move back to the good relationship we enjoyed in the last few years. Let me know please if you want to continue discussing, as I'd like to archive. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow any subsequent discussion at your talk page as I already knew the backstory via another editor who explained it to me here. I am perfectly happy for you to archive and move on. Good travels. --John (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Germans

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk

Long Island New Jersey Railroad

I have added a db-hoax tag to Long Island New Jersey Railroad. I see that you have already warned User:Shreder 9100 for adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have deleted it and asked the user what they were thinking of. --John (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shreder 9100

I believe that

Adobe Systems in March 2011. Biscuittin (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right. I blocked them for a week; I was reluctant to block indef at this stage as it seems they have made a couple of good-faith additions. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at his/her past edits and see if anything else looks dodgy. Biscuittin (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. --John (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 January 2012 he/she changed the photos on

Acela Express. It would be useful if someone with local knowledge could verify that the new photos are what they claim to be. Alternatively, we could just revert to the old photos. Biscuittin (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

French people

Hi, the picture is representing the French Marie Sklodowska Curie (she is from Poland!!), who lives in France. Is not this a bug? What do you think? Top811 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think it is a bug. Why don't you raise it at Talk:French people if it bothers you? --John (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon's College

I have added back two sections. It is simply wrong to have an article on an independent school that doesn't mention the scope of their academic programmes. The extra-curricula section, I agree, needs trimming, but when they appear to have won national competitions then that well merits a mention - sourcing not excision is the way forward.

talk) 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It isn't worth noting that a school in Scotland presents students for exams under the Scottish exam system, as all schools do this. As for the extra-curricular cruft, you can have a week to source it; per WP:V we can't leave stuff unreferenced forever. --John (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the sourced content, please do not remove it again without talk page agreement. Independent schools have a choice of which syllabus they follow; for example they can adopt IB. I am not subject to your artificial deadlines. I am placing the sarguments on the talk page. Best,

talk) 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I will remove anything I see without decent sourcing a week from now. I suggest if it's important to you to keep it that you get to work and find some sources. As regards the curriculum, it really wouldn't be noteworthy for a school in Scotland to follow the Scottish exam system. If they did follow the IB or the English system (and a very few do) then this would be worth recording. Best, --John (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, You are being quite unrealistic here. You have been redirecting and tagging a large number of articles in a short space of time and have made no attempt to check for sources or add sources yourself. TerriersFan has done some excellent work sourcing hundreds of school articles and bringing them up to the required standard. Rather than tagging lots of articles unnecessarily it would be much more beneficial to the Wikipedia project if you could help with the sourcing yourself. Dahliarose (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. As a volunteer, I am of course free to use my time here how I like, so long as I remain within policy. I would argue it would be better if he and you could spend your time on the project looking for references for some of this dodgy material, rather than restoring completely unreferenced material then expecting others to do the hard work for you. I think you'll find though that

policy is on my side on this one. --John (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Distance of Newport from London

Hi there. There is a debate running at Talk:Newport in which you might have an interest. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I commented. --John (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your input. Maybe it's not going to be so clear-cut after all. I had hoped a poll might have averted more edit warring. But that seems to have been too optimistic! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite templates

Regarding a query you posed for me, on

CBM · talk) 22:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the speedy response. I fear you may have misunderstood the discussion there. SG and Frananmax were objecting to the change of date formats, in a section headed Date format change proposal. We are taking about the standardisation on using cite templates which GFH proposed on 10 May. As far as I can see there have been no objections other than from Gimmetoo. I don't blame you for getting the wrong end of the stick as it has been a disproportionately long series of discussions over a fairly minor matter of formatting. I definitely see no fault in what GFH is doing. While you are here, I wonder if you could have a quiet word with Gimmetoo, as he seems to be getting unduly het-up about this minor change? Thanks, --John (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I view both as parts of the same general phenomenon of changing the way that citations are handled in the article. Gimmetoo may be upset, but the general prinsiple is on his or her side here. — Carl (

CBM · talk) 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE May mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

WP:AN

Hi, John. This is a courtesy notification that I have mentioned your name in a discussion at WP:AN. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Query about a serial sockpuppeter. It's related to the work you were doing at Sean Combs. Regards, -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 21:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for help - wrong socks

John -- I don't know any admins personally, but based on some stuff I saw, you seem to be a fair one who resists being trifled with. I need some help from one of those.

I'm a seasoned, mature adult who is a reasonably prolific non-problematic editor (8,000+ edits with near-zero complaints). I've recently been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. There is a minor basis for the block, which was made in a "take no prisoners" campaign by folks I politely disagreed with in a controversial article. I'm preparing an appeal, which should be successful if judged fairly. I have zero personal experience with blocks, but I've read the pertinent material about them. I assume good faith, but I'm not sure that I'll be treated fairly in this matter, due to the "take no prisoners" stuff, which I suspect will continue. It will take me a few days to do the appeal.

In the meantime, two users were wrongly identified as my sock puppets, and are now blocked. One of them is somebody I know well. I helped her to get onto Wikipedia, but she certainly hasn't been involved in any sockpuppetry, and had nothing to do with the recent dispute. Another is somebody I never heard of before, who got labeled as a sockpuppet because he posted a one-line comment agreeing with me in the dispute. (That's part of what I mean by "take no prisoners".)

I will cover both these users in my appeal, but I'm concerned that they will be screwed because of perceived association with me. They are blocked at the moment, so there doesn't seem to be any way for them to dispute the block and/or defend themselves on their own. Does such a way exist, and if it does, what can I/they do to take advantage of it? 216.183.185.87 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, firstly I am flattered that you have a good impression of me as a fair admin. Secondly though, I don't have much experience in this sort of thing. I am generally strongly in favour of giving a second chance to those who are blocked if there is even a whiff of a possibility they will reform or that they were unfairly blocked. Thirdly, without knowing the details of the case there is no way I could give more detailed advice. The stock response would be to email the blocking admin or else arbcom at [email protected]. I will be happy to look at your situation if you can give me some details. What username were you editing under when you were blocked? --John (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(passing by) I believe this is the case in question.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter has it right, I am User:Lou Sander. Kinda Orwellian, since I contacted you from a public computer and as an anonymous editor, my own username and IP address having been blocked, yet some fellow was able to find my conversation with you, then connect me to it.

IMHO, somebody has done something very wrong by blocking MathDame, who is the person I know well (referred to above). I never heard of Yaush. Right now, both of them are blocked, the block indicating a false connection with my alleged sockpuppetry. They are wrongly accused and have not way of responding. This is not a good thing for anybody at Wikipedia to have done, and I'm trying to help make it right. Any advice or assistance from you would be appreciated. 216.183.185.87 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking. Give me 24 hours or so. --John (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it was determined that Yaush was not a sockpuppet per se, and was not blocked ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, here is an initial question. Can you describe in a little more detail why your main account was blocked? Can you outline for me the nature of the appeal you say you were planning to make? If you do this, I would be prepared to discuss unblocking your main account with the blocking admin with a view to unblocking you. When doing this please bear in mind the requirement in this context to
  focus on the aspects of your own behaviour that you intend to change. Good luck; you seem on first impression (and I say this without yet having looked at the circumstances of your block) like a sane and well-intentioned person. --John (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Could you also comment on edits like this one for which the IP you are currently editing from was warned? --John (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John asked me to comment here, so here goes. First, I think that you are running a risk of exacerbating your situation by
    WP:UTRS, if you would be more comfortable there.) If you wish to communicate directly with an admin or other user, the Special:EmailUser function is available to you. As the blocking admin, though, I will say that the evidence presented in your sockpuppetry case is pretty clear. However, if I have somehow misinterpreted it, and have come to the wrong conclusion, I will gladly remedy the situation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

DoRD alerted me to this discussion, as I was the CU involved. I agree with him that you should continue this discussion on your talk page, which you can still edit with your account, or at least via the other less obscure routes, as doing it here might not reflect well. I personally think that an indefinite block was a little harsh and a finite one would have been fairer.

The evidence that got MathDame blocked with the view it was your account was that it edits from the same location as you do, and edits the same area. Yaush was not viewed as one of your accounts because he edits from a very long way away from you. You should consider that involving people you know to edit in the same disputes/issues/areas, known as

meatpuppetry

, is viewed in the same light as sockpuppetry.

The CheckUser evidence I retrieved leaves nothing to the imagination and there is no conceivable way for another CheckUser to come to a different conclusion. You should bear in mind that you are blocked as a reflection of your behaviour - referring to other users' conduct (none of which appears to be at fault) and describing the sockpuppetry as an "allegation" is not going to be in your favour. There is no reason or incentive to unblock someone who does not take responsibility for their actions. WilliamH (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vidal Sasoon

You are on thin ice. Quite clearly against talk page consensus by everyone while you demand your way. As said the onus is on YOU to prove otherwise. And if there is a problem with a source take it to RSN (as mentione dmultile times...while a discussion there has been opened)! At this point it is not AGF and possible vandalism.(Lihaas (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

I am sorry, you'll have to explain what exactly you are complaining about. Are you maintaining that

this discussion? I am sorry it seems we disagree on the reliability of the Daily Mail. The first one is non-negotiable though; we treat the recently dead with the same caution as we accord the living. Sorry if you don't like it but there it is. --John (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Soil article

Thanks much for the edits to the "Soil" article. I can't believe how many errors I let slip. I don't understand the use of "2.0 mm" and such that you applied in a number of places. Is it a special space?

I hope to make the article a good article someday but I seem to be the sole editor at this point. Feel free to make more such changes. I will follow your lead with the examples of changes you made. There is much work to be done. I hope the article reads well. I pride myself with an ability to write simply and clearly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort (talk • contribs)

Yes, it's a non-breaking space. AWB adds it to dates and numbers with units to ensure they don't split across a line break. It's a nice article, thanks for your work on it. --John (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Utero

Hi. I was wondering if you'd like to comment at

talk) 22:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I will take a look.--John (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hey - just wanted to give you a friendly heads-up that, whatever AWB script you were running a couple of hours ago, it has a bug in it. It was tagging disambiguation pages as orphans, which you'd naturally hope they would be. See WROK, 1440 AM, and 105.5 FM as examples. Mlaffs (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes I did wonder about that. --John (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping in search of a result

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Ranger (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know, Night Ranger. I am sorry you didn't like the results of the discussions at

WP:BLPCAT. Have at it, and I hope it works out for you. By the way, it's one-drop rule that you are emulating, not "single drop rule". Yellow badge is another interesting article which is relevant to what you are doing. --John (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess when you're an administrator, then consensus is whatever you say it is, and you can keep invoking non-applicable policies. I haven't violated a thing. Neither have you, since it's apparently fine for you to keep making your vile accusations with claims of yellow badge and one drop. But then it's always easier to smear your opponents than it is to respond to their challenges. Enjoy your power trip. Night Ranger (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're so upset. It's always disappointing when things don't go the way you think they will. Reporting me to AN/I was a weak and predictable move; I could have seen it coming and I could also have seen how it would end. I think I have thoroughly responded to your challenges and indeed refuted them. Edit-warring against consensus to restore a disputed ethno-religious category not supported by sources to an article about someone who died recently, and who did not self-identify with that category; what would you call it? I call it one-drop rule, I call it yellow badge. You're free to disagree of course, but that is honestly how it looks to me. --John (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up my talk page after the vandalism the other day.

Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You are very welcome. --John (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Behe

Thanks for the protection - I think that's what was needed. It seems, wrong, somehow, especially on a BLP, to protect it with the controversial wording. Shouldn't the revision prior to the edit war be the one that is kept? StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that but I don't see the claim as being so egregious as to require removal pending the discussion that now has to take place. As always I remain open to persuasion but I see the main problem as arriving at a compromise version. --John (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't an outrageous slander, but this course of action just seems - I don't know, wrong. Obviously, there are editors who agree with the words being there, but surely when there is an edit war over a controversial addition, and you protect a page you go back to what it was like before. That sounds like common sense to me. There's no policy about this? StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PREFER. And see also WP:WRONGVERSION. --John (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Right - Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. I think that was the concern and confusion in my mind - the reward for edit warring. Well, a clear point certainly exists, so that's easy - but it says "may", so presumably you don't have to. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have discretion to do or not do this. I don't regard the current version as being defamatory; if others disagree I would be happy to reconsider. --John (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first reference is to a self-published source - http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/denial.htm. Please note

WP:BLPSPS - Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. Once again I ask you to remove that material. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the feedback. I've now edited the article accordingly. --John (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And it's good to see a few more editors contributing to the talk page discussion now. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. --John (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Meyers

Can SOMEONE do something about the obnoxious level of vandalism happening on the article today? This crap is one reason writing FAs is such a freaking pain. I've yet to see more than two constructive edits on the article all day... but god forbid we protect the dang thing... now I've got to track down however someone snuck a porn image onto the page... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this. The problem was with Template:Infobox named horse ‎and this has now been full-protected by User:Explicit. I have also added the article to my watchlist. I think that should take care of things for now. Please ping me if any other attention is required. --John (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, this is the 19th FA I've had on the Main Page. It's definitely well up there in terms of just plain old vandalism, not even related to the infoboxes either. It's also just plain edits on the page... but whatever. I guess it's definitely more important that some Randy from Boise gets his jollies than that we help support the long term content editors. Right now I'm burning out figuring out what's going on... it's really annoying and certainly doesn't make me want to keep working on content - when my work is valued so low that protecting someone else's right to vandalise that work is more important than protecting my work. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am awfully sorry you feel this way Ealdgyth. Let me assure you that your work on Featured Articles is very highly valued by me and I am sure by many others. As regards the philosophical idea about preserving quality versus encouraging people to edit, I think the community consensus remains that we protect both equally. If it was up to me I would restore flagged revisions, but it isn't up to me of course. If there is anything, anything at all that you feel I can do to further assist you, please don't hesitate to say. I don't think this is a candidate for full protection but I could semiprotect it if vandalism continues to be a problem. --John (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi's all I really want. I'm not stupid enough to expect full protection, but if we could cut down on the silly IP edits or the throwaway accounts, that'd help. I've long thought we should routinely semi the main page TFA - and I mean it when I say that this article is really getting pounded compared to the rest of the ones I've watched on the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. It's an honour and a pleasure to help you. Please don't hesitate to ask for anything else you need. --John (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry if I sounded cranky... it's been a long (and hot here) day... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Any time. --John (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan] 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

All I have to say is that you are very unfair... That's all... TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to this edit I take it? It didn't seem that helpful so I undid it. What were you trying to do? --John (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make the template a bit like Libyan style template with NATO flags being separated from National flags and the NATO Members listed in Alphabetical order. There is nothing wrong with that! 68.205.95.242 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that indeed. All the same, this has been a difficult area and it might be best to propose your changes in talk before editing. Some of the other changes you made (like capitalising nouns) were downright unhelpful. --John (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and I am not going to "capitalize nouns" am I? Now please just let me make a change to the template. I have asked politely. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just up to me though. Why not post at

Talk:1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and see what other editors think? --John (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

• Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

• WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

• Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

• Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

• Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some time for an article review?

John: I am planning on submitting Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders for FA in a couple of weeks. It has been through GAN and two Peer Reviews. I've gone over it with a fine tooth comb, but I think the article needs one more pair of eyes to make sure it is complete. I noticed your review of Douglas MacArthur recently, and I was hoping you could work some of that magic on Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders before it gets to FAC. Do you have time to read the article? Any help you can provide would be appreciated: just put any comments you have on the article's Talk page. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of me. I will have a look in the next day or two. --John (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for the improvements you made to the article. I'm planning on nominating it at FAC next week, so if you have any recommendations that I should implement before the FAC, just let me know and I'll take care of them. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I may have other recommendations to make before FAC. --John (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deleted paragraph in Interstate 95

this edit removes a paragraph which mentions a discontinuity. The edit comment says "overlink", which appears unrelated

TEDickey (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It was described, and linked, three separate times in that one paragraph. --John (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph mentioned now reads

As of 2007, I-95 is the only non-canceled long-distance Interstate in the original plans that has not been completed.

TEDickey (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. What is your point? How many times do you think the lead should mention and link to this plan to complete it? I think once would be a good number, how about you? --John (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the content was removed, that there is a single oblique comment remaining in a different paragraph. I was curious if you had a reason, or had simply made an error

TEDickey (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I see. Well I am glad to have been able to clear that one up for you. --John (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television

Re a number of edits today regarding language in infoboxes. The template above asks specifically to link a language ie; English, not English. I agree flagicons should not be used in country section but if in the production section where location is not in the same country there is no stipulation not to use a flagicon. I stand to be corrected. Comments please here thankyouREVUpminster (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK recommends not linking "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions" (my emphasis). On a common-sense basis, can you imagine a situation where the link to the English language article would aid a reader's understanding of a TV show? I can't. --John (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought I was going mad but you have changed the template which I thought was permanently protected (red padlock). I hope you are right.REVUpminster (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the documentation not the template. I am right. WP:OVERLINK is pretty uncontroversial and the documentation should reflect that. --John (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, John. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Ankh.Morpork 19:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. As you seem to exert a positive influence over the Ankhmorpork editor, your help would be gratefully appreciated. The editor appears to have gone off the deep end and is making a string of (in my view) ridiculous and unfounded allegations against another editor on an article talk page [27]. Whether or not you agree with me about the spurious nature of the allegations, they are totally unrelated to the article and airing grievances against another editor on an article talk page where we are supposed to be gaining consensus and discussing improving the content is totally inappropriate and disruptive. With thanks Dlv999 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I am travelling so will have a look at this. Meantime, both of you be careful. --John (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some time to look at this tonight. --John (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a good look at this and would only repeat my request to you both to edit carefully and to avoid personalising any further disputes you may find yourselves in when editing in these potentially controversial areas. I would also remind you of my offer to mediate in any further disagreements you may have. I'm sorry I can't offer any more specific advice at this time. --John (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reflinks date formatting

Hi John. What are your thoughts about an edit such as this that is flooding in reference dates in the format YYYY-MM-DD? There has been some discussion at User_talk:Dispenser/Reflinks about formatting issues, however that always seems to dissolve to: "if you want to change it, go fix it yourself". GFHandel ♬  00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage people to use OhC's script to align dates after using Reflinks. It's a shame it can't be configured to align to dmy or mdy dates but seemingly it can't. --John (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why aren't the people using Reflinks required to align the date formats before leaving the article they have just altered? GFHandel ♬  03:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to comment on user talk page

At User talk:SkepticalRaptor, I noticed there's a posted policy of not commenting. I wanted to start a conversation about what's best for a list related to Tetanus vaccine components and resolve a couple of reverts related to the issue. Since it seems you know the user, I was wondering if you could convince him to open up the talk page policy, so we can discuss it? --Xaliqen (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, nevermind. I'm not sure, but, because the process might take more energy than I currently want to devote, I'll focus on other wiki tasks for now. Thanks again. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these edits were unacceptable. I will issue a warning. --John (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Van Speijk Hi John, sorry to bother you but you probably remember

UK & Ireland, HSS 1500, River Shannon, & Ulster Banner. VS has been formally warned for breaching the TROUBLES ruling (for breaching the 1rr; for casting aspersions about others; and for editing with a battle ground mentality) on May 1 of this year[33]. Now his response to that warning (which was issued by consensus of 3 sysops at WP:AE[34]) is to claim that *I* am targetting him and that he is consdidering setting up again to evade scrutiny:

I'm seriously considering retiring "this account" as he describes me, so that in due course, and with a clean break, I can set up again, away from his targeting[35]

It's my judgement that if VS has continued his battling/revert warring/hounding after that Troubles warning he has in fact breached the RFAR ruling and is in-line for enforcement.
I'm asking you for 2 things: one, a review of my conduct here; and two, your 2c on the VS hounding after the WP:TROUBLES warning--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, I am honoured that you ask me. I will look over the next couple of hours and let you know what I think. --John (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply & just to slim down the analysis, the edits in question are those from May 19 to 26 2012[36] - all spaces not just mainspace--Cailil ^talk 18:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will just have my tea first then have a look. --John (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries John and take your time - also in terms of WP:TROUBLES the 2 principles from the RFAR that I see applying here are

"harassment" and "tit for tat"--Cailil ^talk 19:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• I looked at all the diffs you supplied. I endorse your approach and find the editor's conduct to be troublesome. Now, that's the easy bit. As regards enforcement, I have sometimes found WP:AE to be pretty patchy. Would a final warning from me followed by a block if necessary be acceptable? --John (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's perfectly appropriate in the circumstances. Thanks for looking at this & for the sanity check--Cailil ^talk 22:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all, any time. See also here. --John (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Administer?

Hi

The reason I'll asked is I'm looking for one to put in semi-protected a wiki page:

Blockbusters (UK game show)

I asked on the help desk and was told the best way is to ask admin, but Im not sure who etc is one.

Reason for the Semi protection is BANNED USER is using Random ISP, is logging back on to wiki to change pages, User was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darkness2005 but he came back as : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.141.207.87 Before switching over to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.153.180.149 just over the last few days. The reason I know its that user is because he change the same thing on the page, and all the other page he visit, which has has been warned about hence the reason he changes ISP. I hope you can help.User:Crazyseiko (talk)

What evidence is there that this is the same editor? Are the edits wrong? --John (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There a long list of stuff but this has happened this morning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blockbusters_%28UK_game_show%29&action=history the Same user Deleted a number of things of the talk page, which I believe it not allowed? I made the effort to put something in the take including enquire a semi protection and also trying to get some people to explain themselves about S10 was cut into two ( Which I dont believe and there only proof there ever said was oh challenge said it, yet he wont provide links etc. but the user would still rather whitewash. User:Crazyseiko (talk)

I have semi-protected both the article and its discussion page. I also intend to engage the IP user to find out what they were trying to do. --John (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I believe he deleted my request for Semi po, because I did put in my "User with Random ISP making changing is the same banned user" (I be honest it a crap description as Im its my first one and Im not sure how to fill it out) I Know I'm not saint but It least I'm trying to engage in talk and getting information sorted rather than whitewashing. I bet that user will try and Change ISP again before talking User:Crazyseiko (talk)

I tried to talk aswell with the user about source, "" Said website is not given up the fact either http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/5806. Can you post the link to there Facebook page here? Then we can have a look."" He just deleted it! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.153.180.149&action=history The user does not want to prove it in anyway that Challenge said this on there facebook page: BFI also does not say how many series there were. I would be more willing to listern but everytime I ever asked for that link I never get it over the past year!User:Crazyseiko (talk)

The Facebook page is a red herring as that can never be a proper source. It might be best if, having asked me to intervene, you let me have the conversation with them rather than you. --John (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, Hopeful we can get to the bottom of this. I do believe that user is Darkness2005 who is banned, it was he that also made the same changes and others.User:Crazyseiko (talk)

I see the padlock comes off in few days time, and it seems the dialogue with that ISP/Darkness2005 user has not gone anywhere. My point is what will happen to stop it getting changed once that padlock comes off User:Crazyseiko (talk)

Thanks for reminding me. I will continue to keep an eye on it. --John (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Zuckerberg

WP:BLPN the correctness of your edit here. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for letting me know. Don't you have anything better to do than label people with ethnic and religious categories then argue endlessly about it? I think you have lost the argument, such as it was. Why not move on to something more productive? --John (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I entered the discussion long after it was underway. I didn't add the categories that you are referring to. I think all I did was offer an opinion on a point of contention after many other people offered their views on it. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I do think there needs to be wider discussion about how these categories are used in articles, especially about living people. --John (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DaftOldBat89

Hi John,

You recently welcomed me to Wikipedia and I'm grateful for that. Ultimately I should like to contribute to Wikipedia's coverage of the Victorian novelists, setting them in the context of their age.

I'm posting because I've just noticed the most extraordinary business involving a user DaftOldBat89 User Talk:DaftOldBat89 who has recently been making the most beautiful William Worsdworth edits. She's come under attack for her images and now actually banned because of it.

I know you are an administrator and I wonder if you can help. She looks pretty vulnerable to me. A fellow Scot by the way (as indeed I am, well sort of). I think she just wants her account back so she can carry on editing Wordsworth, all she does as far as I can see.

I would be grateful. Thanks. HiNatasha (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this and the user was not banned for any issue to do with images but for serial sockpuppetry, so I would not support their unblocking. Some people are just not able to edit here. Sorry I cannot help you. --John (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiNatasha blocked as a sock. :) WilliamH (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had a feeling. Thanks for your trouble. For someone who wants nothing to do with us, this user spends an awful lot of time dreaming up new socks. --John (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help at Rupesh Paul

Hi John. If you have a minute, could you please look at the edits at Rupesh Paul today and see if you agree with my assessment? There's an editor there who doesn't seem to like banners on the page. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  07:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left them a message. --John (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA review?

Thanks again for your help with Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders. The article is now at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/archive1. If you have time for an FA review, that would be much appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. --John (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query...

WP:NBOOKS and this article currently fails it by my reading. I have never messed much with nominating at AfD, am I totally off on thinking it should be AfD'd? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that at present it should be deleted for lack of independent sources. However my view may be out of step with that of the AfD community. --John (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blockbusters again

Once again the same banned user has just waited mins to change the page once again with no sources. The user 86.133.108.165 is the same user from the other random ups and darkknigh2005. you can clearly see its him who just changed over. He has been very devices about he made the changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.72.187.69 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note said source is wrong and that page will be changed soon, because it was believed central had its own verut turn out its not the case. So I will now speak with them again as it was me who give them the orgianl changes.

What is the user name of the user who was banned? --John (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The username that was banned was called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darkness2005 He's come back as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.141.207.87 which you have spoken to, but Has now switched again to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.133.108.165 And still he wishes to delete stuff. Reason UK gameshow has 11 series for ITV is it was believed there was a Central only version in 1994 but it turns out it was the sky version but that box was never changed, but other details were, I should know as as I said Im the one who told them this information --Crazyseiko (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their July 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on July 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on July 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to eliminate the articles tagged in April, May and June 2011 from the queue and to complete all requests placed before the end of June. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 6 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in April–June 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg . >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of...

Hi John. I wonder if you'd mind casting an expert eye over the trouble today at the Barbara Eden article? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide there. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  21:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan] 19:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit Richie...

Hi John. There is an IP editor active at Lionel Richie who thinks it is okay to include text pointing out the (supposed) similarity of someone to Richie. Would it be possible to protect the page for a while (in the hope that the IP editor gets bored and goes away)? The article has also attracted a fair bit of vandalism lately. Thanks again for any assistance you can provide. GFHandel ♬  00:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected it for a week. I agree these edits were unacceptable. --John (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, can you take a look at this: User talk:Dennis Brown#Question on Lionel Richie/vandalism. Dennis Brown has said that the edits by that IP weren't vandalism, so I've asked him about it to try and get some clarification, as your protecting the page for persistent vandalism seems to disagree with his position. Thanks. INeverCry 05:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction. Dennis is (quite rightly) saying that the removal of the trivia section wasn't vandalism, but the edits I semi-protected for were an attempt to say someone looked like Lionel Ritchie, which was, and also had potential to be a BLP concern. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your response on this, and Dennis's, have been very helpful. I know now to be more careful with reverts and warnings, and to be quicker about getting other editors involved to help with situations like these. Thanks. INeverCry 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. --John (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi, I've got to say that this kind of post is what gives us admins a bad name. It appears that you haven't actually looked into the issue (in short, a single SPA edit warring against a clear consensus for weeks and abusing a bunch of editors - who are all in very good standing - whenever they respond to his posts), and you're then insulting the editors involved in it. If you'd like to help out, an intervention by an uninvolved admin would be greatly appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look. The original complaint was bogus and the matter seems to be a content dispute on a contentious topic. Change my mind; post one diff that shows "abuse" from the editor complained about. Because otherwise I think it is the original complaint which is abusive. Your call. --John (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are a couple of examples: I guess your approach to this page is to vandalize all opposition to the legality and the military necessity of the atomic bombings, If you really mean that I suggest you start to delete all POV's that do not meet the LauraHale-criterias (bolding from the original). As for the POV which is driving this, see the last sentence here. Nick-D (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there I had not seen. Other than the observation that the editor should not have misused the term "vandalism", that English is probably not their first language, and that they have a strong view on the morality of the nuclear attacks on Japan in 1945, I don't see a case for admin intervention here. I stand by everything I said. Sorry if that isn't what you wanted me to say. --John (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will go further after a further look. This was a terrible edit from you, as bad as anything you have complained of. You should

never revert claiming "no consensus". I would like to see you and your side of the edit war start talking and compromising with this user. It takes two sides behaving badly to have an edit war, and I do see problems on both sides here. --John (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

While I disagree very strongly with your comment in regards to my reversion, any admin intervention is better than nothing, so thanks. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ....

But I've taken that article off my watch list, I won't be editing it anyway. However, good to see some action rather than dismissed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Ships Airdates

The Mighty_Shipsarticle has ambigious airdates. I saw some airdates on imdb.com which seem to be more in line than ones before. Please see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1450143/ for the listing of the airdates. Maybe we could copy the same, your thoughts ? I have also listed/linked the same on the talk page of the said article. I'm not sure if I should just edit the airdates taking the basis of imdb.com as I don't know if it's known or regarded as a trusted source or not. Shirishag75 (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Day-Lewis

John, I hope you'll understand that I reverted your recent proposed edits to the article on Daniel Day-Lewis with the suggestion it be proposed on the talk page first. We've just gotten to the point that the discussion is getting somewhere in the neighborhood of productive, and we might (gasp!) be heading toward something like consensus. Ordinarily, I'd probably have left what you did alone, but under the circumstances, and particularly with the related ANI still active, I felt it might be a better move to encourage you to start on the talk page. I also didn't know you are an admin when I made the revert, so please factor that in. Anyway, fingers crossed I didn't create a bigger problem than I solved. --Drmargi (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Reverting good changes is always an extremely inadvisable thing to do. --John (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the time, I'd agree with you. In this particular set of circumstances, I felt it muddied the water and potentially re-inflamed the edit war, which is why I a. suggested you propose the change on the talk page and b. left a message here. --Drmargi (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Reverting a good change for no reason is always wrong. I think what you did was both unhelpful and regrettable. You talk about edit-wars, and about inflaming other editors; what you did is exactly the sort of thing which encourages edit-warring and inflames other editors.

WP:DRNC is an interesting essay that may help you to understand why what you did was wrong. --John (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Paul McCartney FAC

The McCartney article is much improved since your oppose !vote at the FAC one month ago. If you have the time, perhaps consider taking another look. ~ GabeMc (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support John, it was really well timed. Don't worry, the article will likely be at FAC for a few more weeks, so I am confident that any remaining issues will be resolved by then. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent edits, nice work, I appreciate your help! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome; it's been a real pleasure to work with you. --John (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber, etc

Before you get too deep into your copyedit, I wanted to point out that I drafted up this morning a version that did a lot of what you're probably in the process of doing now on the article. See Talk:@justinbieber_(account)#Proposed_rewrite for links to my draft. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. You are a better man than I, for doing that. I don't think I would have had the stamina to finish in any case. --John (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I may or may not have sacrificed a few years' worth of will to live in the process, but it needed to be done so my eyes could stop bleeding :D A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that this article may end up being quite a good one if it can be properly copyedited. I really will take a look at what you are doing and I'm sure there will be a barnstar or something in it for you when all is done. Well done and thank you again. --John (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Was looking at your draft. Do you mind if I edit it? --John (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't at all mind in principle, though it does concern me that multiple editors on the sandox draft may get us into the sticky situation of having to do an ugly histmerge back into the article when it's done. Not sure what the best solution is for that is - we could always kludge the entire draft into the article at the end with an edit summary of "contributed to by users X, Y, and Z", if people aren't too concerned about attribution for who, exactly, did what. I'd say the best solution would be to just slide it over into the article now for others to work on, but I'm concerned that Hawkeye and LauraHale haven't weighed in on the acceptability of the draft and might revert it. In any case, you're free to edit it in my sandbox for now, as long as you're ok with helping me figure out how to untangle histories when all is said and done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good answer. In the circs I will hold off for now. Keep up the good work. I might have a look tomorrow. --John (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I took a wee hack at it. I think this is the way forward though. --John (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good. Given the time constraints that AfD is imposing on us, I'm inclined to send it live in a few hours if no one has disagreed with it by that point. How much do you care about preserving the exact edit history of the sandbox space? I think that under our copying-within-wikipedia terms, we can get away with a copy-and-paste of the draft into the article, with just an edit summary of "condense set of rewrites done by user:John and user:Fluffernutter" or something, rather than a histmerge, if that's acceptable to you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I went ahead and did it that way, to try to give AfD as much time as possible to consider the new version. Hope I didn't step on your toes - let me know if it's a problem and we can go back and try to sort the exact history. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, I know what I took out and changed and I don't need specific credit for each copyedit. It looks a lot better now, well done us! --John (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to both for helping to build an encyclopaedia. It's encouraging to see the "fix" mentality in action (as opposed to the "tear-down" mentality it's been my unhappy misfortune to witness lately). Cheers. GFHandel ♬  20:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for noticing, GFHandel. Funny thing is now I have worked on it I think it should be kept. Often the case when you get stuck into a topic. Suppose I should go change my comment at AfD. --John (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  When I try to look at this situation from outside my own brain, it seems completely hilarious that somehow I'm trying to get this pop culture thing, which I don't care about and don't find all that interesting, kept. Especially when a few days ago I was joking with a friend about how silly those "on Twitter" articles were. But now that I've put in the work, and cleaned it up, and stared at it for hours on end...either the abyss has begun gazing into me, or the topic ain't THAT bad after all. Or else I've just finally cracked up! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel the same way about it. It has been a pleasure to work with you, especially as you are so well-read. I'm a great fan of Nietzsche myself. --John (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for your work on Justin Bieber on Twitter! Arcandam (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you! Fluffer did all the work, I just made some trims. --John (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got a chuckle...

... out of the old lady story at ANI, just wanted you to know. I've told it often.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nice to think something light can come out of all that mess. --John (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oranjblud a.k.a. User:Mddkpp

Greetings, since you have delt with this user before with

WP:BITE

, so I really took this behavior in stride. Now, that I carefully read Oranjeblud talkpage, I see that he/she has had issues before with other accounts. In fact, he was banned for this behavior on another account, so he created Oranjblud. So, here I am to bring this to your attention.

Oranjblud PRODed 42 articles involving railfan magazines in about 60 minutes on July 4th, essentially gutting an entire genre of articles. I was very concerned when I saw this, since it was such a large number of articles... as an AfD/PROD patroller, it seems difficult to process the good PRODs from the bad. And yes, some of those are good PRODs. FIY, I don't care about railfan stuff at all, actually, so I have no dog in that fight. I just want to see Wikipedia be good and do my part.

Now, some of those PRODs I disagreed with, and I removed the PROD tag (and also provided an explanation in the edit summary), and Oranjblud promptly began acting in an uncivil manner, posting on my talkpage:

• My apologies, I think I messed-up the difs. Let me know if you need more information. Roodog2k (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dif #1: "Thanks for wasting my time"

Other users also felt his wrath when they expressed their concerns, such as User;RedRose64, who is also an administrator:

Dif #2: "go fuck yourself"

Also, I voted Weak keep in an AfD, and I got this:

Dif #3: "WTF"

These experiences aren't just related to me, the lack of civility can be seen here in other discussions:

• <railfans> "are incapable of adding any encyclopedic content excluding there own pointless cruft"
• "I'm also getting fed up of you adding references that don't verify the information they are attached to. Also pretty sick of your inability to format a reference properly."
• "If you'd taken any fucking notice of what I said on edit number 1 you wouldn't have wasted my time."
• "Would be great if you stopped reverting to the retarded color scheme"

Like I said, want to bring this to your attention, since you were the last admin to have any official dealings with him. Oranjblud does seem to make good edits, but his attitude leaves a lot to be desired when dealing with other editors and trying to reach concensus. I leave this to your wisdom.

Roodog2k (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned, thank you for the heads-up, and obviously let me know if this recurs. --John (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally as a watcher of some of the Australian magazine articles - (proddable or not) I believe Roodog and Redrose are far too AGF, and I really think such behaviour shows something worth further attention than just gentle masses of words
  Suro 00:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Weird accidental rollback

After I posted the above, I looked at your user contributions to see what you've been working on.

Somehow, I accidently rolled-back two edits of yours. I'm not sure how that happened, it was unintentional and I rolled-back my rollback. So, my apologies. No harm done, I hope. All was as you left it.

Roodog2k (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --John (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For consistently using calm reasoning and compassion instead of the block button when possible, always assuming good faith, and understanding that good people do make mistakes once in a while. You are an excellent example of adminship. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was extremely kind of you. --John (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I commented. --John (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your change: Atomic reactor to Nuclear Reactor

John, Please read my talk section on Parkinson's Law that you changed a few minutes after I made my edits. The talk section discusses why I made the changes. I wrote "Also, the writers talk about nuclear power plants, whereas Parkinson writes about "the Atomic Reactor". I have made the correction. People used different language in 1957 than they do today. If one is referring to a 1957 book (which, for example, talks about asbestos roofing which now is considered a hazardous material), it is appropriate to use the 1957 language. In fact, an atomic reactor may be referring to different physics than that of a nuclear power plant. Since we do not know, it's best to quote the book, rather than make presumptions."

You did not seem to have read that comment before making your change, or if you did, it would be courteous to comment.

Please revert the "atomic reactor" that you changed to nuclear reactor. If you want to add quotes, fine, but you are wrong to change the terminology just because language has changed since 1957 when the book was written.

The article is about a 1957 book. While our thinking may have changed since then, it is wrong to change the author's thinking after he wrote what he thought in 1957. My source is the actual book, which it appears few Wikipedia experts have actually read. ClassicalScholar 11:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

Thank you, I have replied in talk. --John (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks John! You assisted in various ways on the Paul McCartney FAC. Thank you! Without your help and support McCartney would not be a FA today! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very kind. You did far more of the work than I did. Congratulations on the promotion. --John (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

• Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo

• News and notes: Russian Wikipedia blackout; WMF tools; Wikitravel proposal revisited

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football

• Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'

• Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration

• Technology report: Optimism over LastModified and MoodBar, but change in clock time causes downtime

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul and Linda

Could you look at this?--andreasegde (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I suggest you back off. I also noticed this. If it becomes a user conduct issue, other people will need to be brought in. --John (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The/the" request for formal mediation

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast

Can you restore Belfast move (sysop)-protection? Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

John, if you're on, can you protect Scotland article from sustained attacks at the mo'. Thanks 81.154.110.11 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, for now. I see no sustained attacks that normal editing cannot deal with. Let me know if it gets worse. --John (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles. Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melford Stevenson

I don't know if this is something you might be interested in, but someone recently "challenged" me to do something with

Fatuorum 03:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's an interesting article. It would be fun to work on it with you. --John (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. What do you think of it so far?

Fatuorum 13:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I love it. I will have a think about some more focused suggestions to improve it later this evening. --John (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about done content-wise I think, but there are still a couple of missing page numbers to sort out. How could anyone not have a sneaking admiration for a judge who advocates "You sentence off the top of your head. If the man's a shit, down he goes. If there's something to be said for him, you do your best not to put him inside." Apart from all the work I've had to put into what looked at first blush like a relatively easy job, including having to update the {{

Fatuorum 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Malleus, you are aware that "You sentence off the top of your head. If the man's a shit, down he goes. If there's something to be said for him, you do your best not to put him inside." could pretty much sum up every single Arbcom member's attitude to you? What makes legal systems (both in reality and in the Wiki-bubble) better off without the Stevensons and Sandsteins, is the pure arbitrariness of a system in which "justice" is based entirely on whether the guy wearing the black cap thinks the accused is "a shit".

BTW you might want to ask Ironholds and Carcharoth to have a look at Melford as well; if you're planning to take him through GAC/FAC they're the ones most likely to raise issues, so better to resolve any potential sticking points beforehand. 78.146.201.142 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Malleus for all your hard work. 78.146, I like Sandstein and I'd be grateful if you could refrain from attacking him (or anyone else) on my talk page. --John (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sandstein certainly isn't on my Christmas card list, nor I on his, but that's by-the-by. I've just got one more source to lay my hands on and then I'm planning an assault on GAN for Mr Justice Stevenson. But I'll check with Ironholds and Carcharoth before even thinking about trying to scale FAC. There may be something blindingly obvious that needs to be covered in an article about a High Court judge that I simply have no idea about. Anyway, thanks for your help, and if this ever gets to FAC you will of course be one of the nominators.

  Fatuorum 23:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thank you Malleus, that is nice of you. I too have little idea of what should be on a judge's article, though I have been trying to read a few to get a feeling for how these articles should be. My only qualm currently is that it may read a little too negatively, though I appreciate your efforts towards neutrality. It reminds me of the Thatcher project, where I learned a lot about article-writing on a difficult and controversial subject. I will continue to think about it. Thank you again for inviting me to help out. --John (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've tried to be as even handed as I can, including that balancing quote from Roskill, which I think puts Stevenson's philosophy in place; the world was obviously a very black-and-white place for him, populated by good guys and bad guys, with very little in between. The man was surrounded by controversy throughout his career because of his outspokenness; My personal opinion is that his defence of Ruth Ellis was an absolute disgrace, and even he himself admitted that his team blew it in the trial of Bodkin Adams, another article that needs work incidentally.

  Fatuorum 20:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  He was a bit of a hanging judge, wasn't he? I can't help thinking that for a FA on a fairly high-profile person, there should be more depth, more detail. Maybe we should get someone from a more law-enforcement/justice mindset to read it over. Isn't Newyorkbrad a lawyer? I always find him a fair dealer.--John (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have pinged Brad just in case he can help. --John (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC) And I noticed you had asked Ironholds and Carcharoth as well. The more the merrier in a case like this I think. --John (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As you say, the more the merrier; better to have suggestions and criticism now. There have been some good suggestions from

  Fatuorum 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Nice one. You mean Ferma (talk · contribs), don't you? I love the feeling when one gets beyond the surface level and really gets into a subject. I feel like we're getting there with Stevenson (well, mainly you to be honest), and I feel a little bad I haven't been more help. I am relaxing and having a beer tonight; I promise to look properly over the weekend. Keep up the good work, I am watching and appreciating what you are doing. --John (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do, sorry; must have had Fram on my mind for some reason. Don't feel bad, I dragged you into this, so no reason for you to feel guilty. I remember a quote from I think it was

  Fatuorum 23:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Ach, I hardly do any adminning these days anyway. It's over-rated; editing is by far the more enjoyable. And I always was a gnome, I have these thousands of overlinked articles to attack with AWB for when I get bored. Don't worry, I will have a proper look tomorrow evening. I just made a minor change which you should review there. --John (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I just saw it, no worries. Even when I wrote that I knew that it was probably stepping into OR territory (even though as you say it's undoubtedly true), but I couldn't help myself. That's why I need collaborators, to keep me on the straight and narrow. ;-)

  Fatuorum 23:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  We all do! --John (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I had another wee hack at it this morning. Incidentally, this counter seems not to credit me with any edits at all to the article! Never seen it fall over before; does it work for you? --John (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a note at the top of that page saying that the lag is 6 days and 10 hours, so that'll explain it. The article history tool I use shows you as the third-highest contributor, with 31 edits.[37] I think I'll probably restore the "controversial" description of the Garden House riots, as that's something I planned to expand on just a little, to explain the controversy and that Stevenson's verdicts were upheld on appeal.

  Fatuorum 14:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That makes sense. Of course, you are totally welcome to restore that, especially if you can fill it out a bit from the sources. On its own, "controversial" is one of these words I have learned to look for and view with mistrust, along with "iconic", "critically-acclaimed", "seminal", and quite a few others. As with all of these, if they can be supported there is of course no problem. Were my other little nips and tucks ok? --John (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, and that's a really nice tool. I hadn't seen it, thank you. --John (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, fine so far as I'm concerned, thanks.

  Fatuorum 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Now at GAN. It still needs a bit more work before trying FAC, but I think it's now a worthy GA.
  Fatuorum 12:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It looks great. Well done for all your hard work. --John (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    GA now. I think with a little bit of expansion this could be a good FAC prospect in a few weeks.

    Fatuorum 20:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    • Very well done. FAC here we come. I am going away for a few days but will be back the second week of August. See you then. --John (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm in no rush, enjoy your break.

      Fatuorum 00:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      Thank you. Look after Wikipedia while I am away. I'll be in a tent on

      Skye, full of midgies and children. --John (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

      ]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

• Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair

• News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years

• Featured content: Taking flight

• Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June

• Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Good to see your edits on the page of Blair, i am having a issue with a person over here, who's making attempts to change the basic information on a page

Libyan–Egyptian War‎, he's denying the reliable sources like the newspaper of the day when event happened, then the book 'Dictionary of Wars', and adding his own theory by adding source which isn't supporting his addition. Have a look. Thanks Clarificationgiven (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Interesting. I will have a look. --John (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. There was a report against me on this page[38] regarding socks, i have told what i had to there, now the page only needs a admin's action and close, so i request like you to perform. Thanks Clarificationgiven (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably let a different admin close this one. Thanks for updating me. --John (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, but can't really understand the last post, whether safe or not. Or it just depends on admin now? Clarificationgiven (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What

You reverted all my edits in my last account as "unsourced" and left my with "do it again and you will be blocked"UnsourcedBlanker222 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of that account, please? --John (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I tell you that?--UnsourcedBlanker222 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you brought it up here. If you were not willing to talk about it, why bring it up? Meanwhile you should look at

WP:POINT and decide if you are in violation of it. --John (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Acting up at the Sylvia Young Theatre School

Hi John. Could you please take a look at the Sylvia Young Theatre School article—specifically to do with a message I've left at User talk:Blogville? That user has been running a long campaign to get "Sean Borg" listed on the page—a campaign that has recently included vandalism of the article. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. GFHandel ♬  20:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your stance. You have been much nicer than I would be, which is no bad thing. I have underlined your warning. Please let me know if they misbehave again. --John (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your usual prompt attention. GFHandel ♬  20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Hope

There's another issue that has developed that I would appreciate if you could cast an eye at: Talk:Bob Hope#Cite templates for referencing. Thanks again. GFHandel ♬  20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and may intervene, but anyone will tell you I am rubbish at citation templates. Have you considered asking Malleus? I know he does a lot of work along these lines. --John (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do, even to the extent of updating some citation templates if they won't do exactly as I want: comes from spending too much time at FAC, where using a comma when it should be a period is a capital offence. Obviously I'm not allowed to touch the important templates though, not having adminly powers, but a surprising number of templates aren't protected. Anyway, I've commented there, and I can absolutely copper-bottom guarantee that any reasonable manual citation style can be emitted by the citation templates.

Fatuorum 23:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that, I noticed the sterling work you had done on the judge article and thought you would be a better person to ask than me. --John (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a quick look through the article, and I'm convinced that there's nothing GFHandel could do to make it any worse than it already is. It's rather a disgrace I think that so many articles on well-known characters such as Bob Hope are in such bad shape, defended by cranks whenever anyone makes an effort to improve them.

Fatuorum 00:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks (I think). :-)

Seriously, thanks to everyone here (and of course Dianna and Br'er Rabbit there) for helping to address the issue. I'll admit that I find such episodes to be draining. It never ceases to amaze me that no matter how much I feel I'm trying to help and improve articles, there's always someone who will think the opposite (but I guess that's the result of being exposed to thousands of opinions).

Apart from the performance issue (and we've all seen articles with about 300 Cite templates to be not much of an issue), I genuinely can't understand the reticence in using Cite templates, and certainly not based on any sort of

WP:RETAIN

argument. To me, that goes to the heart of the problem with some editors because I feel they sometimes lose sight of why we are here: to provide articles to readers. Using Cite may not be RETAIN to editors, but (if done properly) should not transgress RETAIN for readers. And of course there are long-term benefits to editors when bots can do much maintenance because they have parameters on which to bite.

Once again, thanks. GFHandel ♬  01:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Meadow

Good to see you getting involved with Poppy, err, in the nicest possible way of course. I think this is its third FAC, and the nominator seems to have gone AWOL, so I've determined to drive it over the line this time. It's a short little article, mainly using online sources, so how hard can it be?

Fatuorum 20:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Heh, you made the mistake of mentioning it here. As you know I cannot read a Wikipedia article without tinkering with it. It's quite a nice little article, though of course I am a little snobby about these popular culture articles. I'll have a look at it again. --John (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm exactly the same. I'd defy anyone to find an article I could read without being tempted to tweak it just a little bit. I used to be a little snobbish about popular culture articles, but I somewhat softened my view after helping with

Fatuorum 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely, and I will try to be less of a snob. You may not know that I was recently awarded a Barnstar for my work on

Justin Bieber on Twitter, which was subsequently deleted. I had somewhat mixed feelings about the whole thing, as you can imagine. --John (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My view has pretty much always been that these articles are going to exist, like it or not, so they ought to be at some kind of minimum standard to serve as guidance for those writing similar articles in the future. That's one of the reasons I worked so hard on the

Fatuorum 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm a bit pissed off that

Fatuorum 03:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't blame you. I would be too. --John (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I am pissed off because M.Mario has reverted my agreed-on trims to the lead. This is going to be hard work! --John (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's sorted now, thankfully.

Fatuorum 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

All's well that ends well. (Interesting by the way how many of our favourite clichés come from Shakespeare).--John (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies For The Cross-Posting

John,
I'm sorry for cross-posting my replies to you from my Talk page to yours. I see that it isn't necessary and that you don't like it. It's your Talk page, so you should run the show here. I thought that's how it works on mine, at any rate.--Ben Culture (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite all right, no harm done and no hard feelings. --John (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that. --Ben Culture (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. --John (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike

• From the editor: Signpost developments

• News and notes: Chapter head speaks about the aftermath of Russian Wikipedia shutdown

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics

• Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans

• Op-ed: The future of PR on Wikipedia

• Featured content: When is an island not an island?

• Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Big No

Hi John. When you get a second, could you please have a look at the vandalism that is occurring at Roy Orbison? Thanks in advance. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  03:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me. I semi-protected one week. --John (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden

My talk page is not the place for further discussion of this.

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.

---

A strong caution here. Even though I think I agree with you on the content question, please be mindful of

WP:CONSENSUS, and the article probation status (described on the talk page). You're up to 2RR or 3RR right now. Now that there's a serious objection you should probably wait to see if consensus develops before pushing through your proposed addition. And definitely don't add dispute tags to this article. There is a very strong, longstanding objection to editors adding tags to reflect, as Johnuniq says, one editor's dissatisfaction with being reverted and not gaining consensus on their proposal. Whatever the tag itself says, this is a featured article and we don't degrade the experience of the (tens of?) thousands of readers who visit the page daily to alert them that one Wikipedia editor is displeased with a revert. There's a history of editors coming to the article to complain, and acting out by adding POV / dispute tags. That doesn't go over well. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I am well aware of the article probation. I think you owe me an apology for your edit summaries, particularly this one. If you want to make that apology here, that might help us to get on with improving the article. And I'm at 1RR currently, and observing BRD, while you are at 2RR. --John (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to apologize for there, that request / caution stands as does the revert count. "Drive-by" tagging is an apt term that has been used on the page to describe an editor's adding a dispute tag to the article page after their initial content proposal is rejected or fails to gain consensus. Again, please do not do that. If anything, I'm sorry if I overstated the extent to which asking for more negative stuff to achieve balance in an article is a POV violation, it can be conceived as that but it can also be conceived as asking for a more complete treatment. In this article's history, it has mostly been the former, so editors are understandably wary of people new to the article jumping in with guns blazing trying to wedge in negative content to balance things. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive-by" tagging doesn't mean that. Inform yourself of what it does mean before using the term again, lest you make a fool of yourself. Check out

the ability to count is pretty important when discussing reverts. --John (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Spare me please

• First
  bold
  edit
• Drive-by tag[39]
• 1RR - restores tag[40]
• 2RR - restores tag again[41]
• 2RR redux - removes tag but restores disputed content[42]

You came to an high traffic featured article and began edit warring and flinging ridiculous accusations against multiple editors. That's conduct unbecoming. This section is a friendly caution about your recent edits, which are out of line. Your edits are at issue here, not mine. I'm going to disengage as long as the disruption on the main article page stops. Ignore the caution if you wish, but you are on notice, and a more collaborative spirit and tone would be much appreciated. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "*2RR redux" mean in your world? You have disgraced yourself once by your stupid behaviour, which is no big deal, and then twice, much more seriously, by not having the wit to apologise when asked. Never darken my talk page again, until you learn the basics of Wikiquette and what a revert is. --John (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GOCE July drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here. Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress). Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a way

John, would you mind advising me about how to handle these threads: [43][44]. They are convoluted, so I'll understand if you decline. The problem is mainly the way the editor I am trying to work with evades the issue. He never justifies his position (well he can't actually!) but just asserts its correctness. And when he refers to what he claims is my position, it usually isn't my position. Very slippery. I keep trying to get on a workable footing with him, but I can't see a way. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have a look. Hold on a few minutes while I read. --John (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion. The key thing here is to move forward with implementing a solution, albeit not everyone will be delighted with it. Let me know if I can be of any further help. --John (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that --Epipelagic (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. --John (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, not that it matters unduly but I referred to you as "he" and it now strikes me that you may be female. Sorry for any offence caused, in either direction. --John (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan] 09:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sean Combs GAN

fyi. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Thank you for the heads-up anyway. --John (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the last? He tried to quick fail it when he's not the reviewer. Also used his bot inappropriately in an 'ownership' dispute. And see his talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has unfortunately been quite a major user conduct issue from this editor. If it continues it may be necessary to get an uninvolved admin (which I am not) to enact a block. --John (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been going on for years. With me for about two, but I've heard talk going back to 2006. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi, John. Why did you block this account for vandalism? I think that action was highly misguided. The edits are not vandalism, as an Internet search reveals. And even if it were, he/she should not have been blocked after only one warning. 4im warnings do not apply in cases like this. I see the block has been challenged. Would you reconsider? NTox · talk 16:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked for edit-warring to restore this edit, and for the abusive edit summary. I would unblock or be happy for another admin to do so if the editor showed an awareness of why this edit was wrong and made an undertaking not to do any more edits like this. Failing that, I would rather that they stay blocked. Sorry. --John (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. You might consider using the {{uw-ewblock}} template rather than {{uw-vblock}} if you're blocking for edit warring, so the accurate reason is provided. Even so . . is there a one revert rule placed on 2012 Summer Olympics? If not, his revert seems perfectly acceptable. In fact, he thought his edit was reversed because of the false positive of a bot, which makes this even more okay. Where I can agree with you is about the edit summary, but that seems far from blockworthy (look closely and it's not even a personal attack). This doesn't seem right. NTox · talk 17:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For your reference, also note this thread at the administrator's noticeboard that is related to this block. Don't worry: no complaints about you - just a totally unrelated issue. Thought I should let you know. NTox · talk 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the messages. For an edit like this, even if it was referenced (which it wasn't), such an edit could never be an asset to the article. Adding it twice with a rude edit summary was definitely taking it into vandalism territory for me. There is nothing to stop them adding a proper unblock request; as I said I wouldn't mind their being unblocked in the least if there was evidence they knew what they had done wrong and would not repeat it. --John (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:50francstexupery.jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Obama

I just nominated it for FAR. George Tupou VII (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. --John (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random acts of baking

A brownie for you! Dianna (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was delicious. --John (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jsar

What new editor finds AfD that quickly? Troll? I've given him a welcome message, may give him another warning over blanking at

talk) 10:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I did wonder. Worth keeping an eye on that one I think. --John (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive is relevant here. I have blocked indefinitely per WP:DUCK. Thanks for the poke. --John (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia.

talk) 12:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You are welcome. --John (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Brae

It's a fair cop. It's now in the context of conversation so I'm hopeful that the Talk page can be left intact. I've lost the desire to publish this on Wikipedia after learning how more effort from other people (not least yourself) is required to continue. Adding the Talk link to the article was to be my only inclusion on it so was hopeful that it would be realised as legitimate and remain. NARkwS (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you weren't able to include this interesting information. I hope you have not been totally put off contributing here. If you want any more advice, please don't hesitate to ask. --John (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not put off. I enjoyed the challenge but sharing the findings on here was becoming a separate mission altogether. Thank you. NARkwS (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, I appreciate that you took the time to review my candidacy and I hope to learn from the sentiments expressed there.

Take care. =)

Talk) 10:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ARGH....

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle history - is it not enough to deal with Gregorian mission on the main page ... but now I have some person inserting unsourced translations that are already linked into the front of a featured article... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. --John (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almeda's Affiliations

Hi John, the affiliations listed in the infobox are from here: http://almedauniversity.org/certification-accreditation.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronoglider (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a

reputable third party source to include this. --John (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Hello, Could you please lift the 0RR restriction on this article? The dispute you imposed in in relation to ceased as soon as this was imposed (Robertmossing (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since), and keeping it place indefinitely is unnecessary as there really isn't all that much conflict on that article. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

Just so I dont get blocked (I already was before and now I am scared of it) I just want to say sorry for all the reverting on the van Persie page. I should have just went to the talk page straight away or asked others to help. Thank you for just giving me a warning and now I hope to this time remember. I dont want to cause trouble because that is not why I am on wiki. My goal is to greatly improve football pages and other topics and that is what I want it to remain. Cheers. --

Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries. You are quite right that next time you should go to article talk or RPP rather than reverting. --John (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do mate. Cheers. --

Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Robin Van Persie

Id like to know why you have protected the page Robin Van Persie. The edit that he is now a Manchester United player needs to be made soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobhu (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I protected it because people were adding information without references. Whenever the deal is finalised and there are reliable sources to that effect, we can add it to the article. --John (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwile flonking

In the course of a discussion on the

Dwile Flonking

. I'm certain that ought to be "Dwile flonking", but it's beyond my meagre powers to move it as there's a redirect in the way.

Any thoughts on this crucially important issue? :-)

Fatuorum 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What an interesting article! I moved it to the non-capitalised name as I agree with your argument. --John (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's certainly a strange one. I saw someone argue earlier today at AN that Wikipedia has no hierarchy, yet you're able to make that move and I'm not. How does that work?

Fatuorum 16:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course there is a hierarchy, but it's an informal one. Its a less hierarchical structure than say the

Angry Brigade. I was lucky to get in when I did; I doubt I would pass RfA now, for what it's worth. --John (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I couldn't even pass RfA five years ago, but am I bitter? You bet your ass I am.

Fatuorum 17:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If it was up to me I would totally trust you with the small privileges we NCOs are allowed to wield. Deletion, protection and blocking aren't all that much use in most disputes anyway. Have you seen Gimmetoo's latest antics? --John (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, no. More edit warring?

Fatuorum 17:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Tendentious editing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and User talk:Tony1. Still on his bloody date format hobby horse. --John (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Someone ought to block Gimmetoo as being effectively a single purpose account IMO. I also think that Wikipedia made a big mistake in muddling up the "administration" of content issues with that of behavioural issues, which has led to the present absurd situation in which nobody who's ever said "Boo!" to one of the self-appointed great and good stands a snowball's chance in Hell chance at RfA, Not healthy, as the ever declining number of successful nominations shows, coupled with the declining overall quality of Wikipedia's articles.

Fatuorum 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Gimmetoo is his own worst enemy in the way he argues for his preferred formatting over improving articles. I don't think he deserves a block but I think it's a shame he doesn't use his time here better. I'm sad to say I agree with you on both the other points. The raw information of the project continues to increase, but the average quality of the information goes down. Lately I have noticed an awful lot of truly terrible articles carrying the FA star. Some are articles that were promoted a long time ago but others don't have that excuse. When only a tiny percentage of our articles carry this honour, we should ensure it really does represent the very finest of our output. And I'm not sure that we really do. --John (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, GA bit that bullet some time ago with its sweeps project. I can't recall the figures for the overall result, and I'm too lazy to look them up, but of the 321 articles I checked, I delisted just over 45% of them. I've never been sure why FA didn't do something similar.

Fatuorum 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed. Because standards rise and articles need to move with them. --John (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why are you removing sourced material??? its properlly sourced

why are you removing sourced material??? its properlly sourced now your starting to mess with the article ther eno reason to remove the soruced materail--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to article talk. Incidentally, if you are going to post on talk pages it would make sense to run your contributions through a spell check first; some of your output is quite hard to understand otherwise. --John (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you seem intent on undoign good work and progress on the article i see no point taking it to the article talk page, if oyu read my use rpage i clear state i am dsylexic--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I made the suggestion. "oyu" for example is not a word and a spell checker would make it easier to reduce such mistakes and make it easier for others to read your posts. --John (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

username puzzle

User:Dgdx34t6hf - you hard blocked them yesterday for a username violation. I am asking as I don't understand the reference - it just looks like a random set of characters to me. Why is the username offensive? Secretlondon (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like a

confusing username to me, and when taken along with their unhelpful edits, seemed worthy of a block to me. --John (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The template you used was too strong really - that's for obscenities etc and I presumed that it must be racist slang or something. You want something like Template:Uw-vaublock. Secretlondon (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. --John (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE news and September drive invitation

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC). September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Happiest Days of our Lives"

I was interested to see the number of edits you did to this article. When I looked at the article's edit history, and I saw that you made your edits on July 23rd, I admit, I expected to see a lot of my own contributions to the article removed. I was very surprised (and a little proud) to see nothing you axed was mine. I agreed with every choice you made, except a slight disagreement on one (You removed a longish Roger Waters quote that maybe should have just been edited down a little, or even left as it was, since it wasn't particularly detracting from the article. But I can't say this distresses me.) You improved the article, and perhaps just as importantly, you set a good example. I thank you for it. --Ben Culture (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. --John (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jsar

Hi John,
I don't see the connection you imply in this SPI. Wrong sockmaster?
Cheers, Amalthea 08:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was behavioural similarity, but it's a couple of weeks ago now. Let me have another look and I will see what I can come up with. --John (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Regarding references for the Rangers article lead section, I think another user took out the references from this section saying all citations were contained within the relevant sections of the article, which the lead section was outlining. I was about to add a ref for the point you made but then realised it would be the only one in the whole lead section! Gefetane (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It should only be in the lead if it is already there (and referenced) in the main body. --John (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping articles

Hi John. In a similar way that the pseudonym

Wanda Koolmatrie redirect to the real-life person Leon Carmen (currently it is the other way around—with Leon Carmen redirecting to Wanda Koolmatrie). I raised this suggestion on the Koolmatrie talk page six months ago, and there has been no objection. I can probably perform the swap of redirects (and there will have to be a little article rewriting to accommodate the change in perspective), however I wanted to run this by someone who can confirm it is a reasonable thing to do. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  21:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Seems reasonable to me. --John (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin crowbar needed

In the course of the ongoing GA review of

court baron

(another type of manorial court). Both had a stalled merger proposed almost a year ago now and apparently forgotten, so what I want to do is to rewrite the manor court article to include the three types of manorial court: the court of honour, the court baron, and the court customary (halmote court), and complete the merger, but in the opposite direction to that proposed.

What I can't do though is the apparently simple first step of renaming "manor court" to "manorial courts". It's so vexing not to be able to do even straightforward stuff like that.

Fatuorum 00:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed this request, and it looks like John has been offline for a bit, so I deleted

Manorial courts and you can move an article to that title at your convenience. John, I hope/assume I'm not stepping on any toes, but I like to do something actually useful every week or so, and this looked like low-hanging fruit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Now all I need to do is complete the merge, expand the article, and add reliable sources. Piece of cake really by comparison. ;-)

Fatuorum 03:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please don't feel embarrassed just because I did all the heavy lifting on this one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW John, I really don't think there's much more material to be found on dear old Melford, so what do you say to a tilt at FAC?

Fatuorum 03:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, both of you. I am up for FAC if you are. --John (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick it up later today then. The feedback will be good if nothing else.

Fatuorum 06:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Patience has never been one of my strong suits. As my mother sometimes says "life's too short to bugger about", so Melford is now at FAC. If we keep on top of the review I think we've got a good chance of making it.

Fatuorum 08:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nice work. It's looking good. Should I note my support at the FAC? --John (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you're one of the nominators there's no need. What we want is three independent reviewers to say it's absolutely brilliant. :-)

Fatuorum 21:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll get

canvassing then. --John (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nylon (magazine)

I was at first confused at what your edit intended, then relieved that it was nearly a perfect revert to a previous version, made stealth by the innocuous edit summary "ce". Thanks for looking out. --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the edit summary wasn't the best. --John (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan] 00:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Melford Stevenson's FAC

I'm beginning to lose my rag a bit at the FAC, so I'll have to step away for a while. Might be an idea if you took a look.

Fatuorum 16:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I was watching and intended to look this evening. Been out all afternoon. Sorry to leave you minding the shop on your own. --John (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a few hacks; I think there are good points that we can use to improve the article; in some cases I agree with you that the proposed changes are not beneficial. Thanks for all your work on this. --John (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to leave the review to you for now, as I'm rather pissed at Brian's "I know best" attitude. Feel free to make whatever changes you think are appropriate.

Fatuorum 22:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks a lot Malleus. Do you think we could use this photo in the article? --John (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, with a good fair use rationale. It's the same photo that's used in the ODNB article, where it's attributed to Elliott & Fry, 1959.

Fatuorum 00:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I thought it a nice one. Should I swap it over, do you think? --John (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why not. The present image is under a fair use rationale as well anyway.

Fatuorum 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I've done that. Off to bed now. --John (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the new lead image is a big improvement. I see that the article does not have an infobox, which is fine by me (I know best, of course), but I notice that all the other FA law biographies have infoboxes. If the issue is not raised during the FAC, one or other of the infobox obsessives may attempt to add one later, citing precedents. So it will be as well to have anti-box arguments prepared. The article is looking in increasingly good shape, but please note my reservations on the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded to do without an infobox but I have no strong feelings on the subject. I appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. I will address your points on the lead but I have some stuff to do for the next couple of hours so it will be later on. Thanks again. --John (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not wanting to promote the idea of an infobox, merely suggesting that you keep vigilant. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. My line would be that if all or most well-developed articles in this subject area have infoboxes, then perhaps this one should. Otherwise I would prefer to do without. As I say, I don't feel terribly strongly about it either way. I would also defer to Malleus as the main author of the article; presumably if he had wanted an infobox he would have put one in. I understand your point and I will gird my loins against any such pressure to add one. --John (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly for or against infoboxes either, and I never even considered one as it happens, and hadn't noticed that other law biographies have one; there's something to be said for consistency though. Nice work today BTW John, and I agree the article has improved somewhat as a result of Brian's observations. There's stuff going on in my real life that's making me a little short tempered at times (or even more short tempered than usual if you prefer), so apologies to you Brian for flying off the handle.

Fatuorum 19:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Not at all, good teamwork is all, and you did most of the work. I saw you apologised to Brian at his talk, and I want to recognise the class that showed. Walking away for a while was a good strategy too when you were getting pissed off. Thanks again for all the good work. --John (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never had a more difficult and frustrating FAC than this one, no more judges for me. If it weren't for the fact that if Melford fails FAC then he'll lose his GA listing I'd have abandoned him to his fate some time ago, and if he does fail FAC I'll never be taking him back there again; just another GAN to get the green blob back and that'll be it.

Fatuorum 02:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I feel the same way; it's been fascinating but also exhausting. I have a lot going on just now in real life and this has pushed things to the limit. Great working with you again though. --John (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God it's over![45] Never again.

Fatuorum 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What a relief! Good work Malleus. I just shuffled a few bits around as usual and found a dodgy pic. --John (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did a lot more than that John. Had you not been involved I would have thrown all my toys out the pram and abandoned Melford in sheer frustration. So well done to both of us.

Fatuorum 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, we'll agree to disagree. As always I enjoyed working with you and rediscovered your sheer work ethic and writing talent. You're an example to humble functionaries like myself. Any time you need support again, just give me a shout. I very unwisely commented on a truly awful FA candidate recently; it's an extinct flightless bird if that gives you a clue. --John (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. As a penance for nominating our friend I'm morally obliged to look through a few other FACs, but I've found that rarely makes you any friends.

Fatuorum 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Luckily I am not here to make friends, but to build the encyclopaedia, and to follow and help enforce our norms. Any occasional wee moments of amicality are an unexpected bonus. --John (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it another way then; it not infrequently earns you implacable enemies.

Fatuorum 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, some time in your life." - Winston Churchill --John (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Repair the evil that is done to you with/ something that is better. And lo!/ The enemy who did evil to you/ May turn into a close and true friend." From the Moslem scriptures (quoted in Richard Holloway, On Forgiveness) --John (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." Abraham Lincoln--John (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I really do wish that more administrators got involved at the quality end of the project as you've done; there's a quite different view from there I think.

Fatuorum 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I always was more interested in the content side than in enforcing the rules. As I grow older here (and like you I am now ancient in Wiki-years) this tendency grows even stronger. You helped me get there, pal. --John (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in

dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page

.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Magdeburg

Hi, sorry but what is the problem? And "MOSICON" mean's? Eddy1988 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think there is a problem, do you?

WP:MOSICON is our manual of style on using flags and icons. It recommends against using flag images for decoration. There has been a specific consensus for quite a while that using them in lists of sister cities is not helpful. Hence my removal. --John (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Image histories

I've followed up at the NFC talk page with some of the history of that image that I looked up today. I wanted to leave a note here for you, as I should have notified you (as the uploader) of that discussion in the first place, and I'm glad you found it. I also wanted to explain why I've gone into such detail there: it is partly because I know a little bit (from personal experience) about how such images are handled and distributed, and partly because I'm fascinated by the history of such images and the organisations that produce, store, handle, distribute, sell and dispose of them. It also relates to the ultimate fate of such images and collections of images. Some end up in archives and larger collections, some end up in auctions and individual collections, and some are lost forever. But they all have a history behind them, mostly poorly documented, but sometimes it is possible to trace at least part of that history. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I really appreciate that you take the matter so seriously. However the discussion ends up I shall certainly have learned something. --John (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the bad news is that following what others have said in that thread, I now think the image needs to be nominated for deletion. Consensus may end up being that the image should be kept, but either way, as you say, something will have been learnt. For my part, I've just spent far too long wrestling with the instructions at the image deletion nomination page. Anyway, since I've now filled out the paperwork, the formal discussion is here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. As someone who in the past has taken an almost Taliban approach to frivolous use of non-free material on the project, I find it amusing to be on this end of things. It will be interesting to see what the community decides to do. --John (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the tiny, miniscule fraction of the community that cares about such things?

Fatuorum 19:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right, and that's a disgrace. See

WP:VEGAN for an amusing essay on the subject. --John (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not just that most of the 'community' don't know about these issues, but that most don't even bother with them. I used to be a lot more active in image discussions, but not for the past few years (I should pull together a few links to remind myself of some of those past discussions). I'd also forgotten how moribund image deletion discussions are. Almost as bad (maybe worse) than category deletion discussions (it is entirely possible some may agree with deletion, but for completely different reasons, such as the staple favourite of WP:NFCC#8!). BTW, are either of you interested in Bernard Horsfall? I doubt it, somehow, but thought I'd point it out in case there was a glimmer of interest there. Carcharoth (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already picked the worst nits off it, but I don't think I have any interest in improving it further just at the moment. --John (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twin towns

Hello. I cannot see anything in particular in

WP:MOSICON that supports your current decision to remove flag icons from two specific articles (Aix and Marseille). I notice for example that many articles on French towns do use flags, Lyon, Toulouse, Annecy, Orléans, Nantes, Bordeaux, Dijon, Montpellier, etc. Here are examples from the UK (some articles use flags, some don't and some don't mention international relations or twinning at all): Colchester, Oxford, Nottingham, Dover, Canterbury, Liverpool, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Pitlochry, Aberystwyth, etc. Your point does not seem to be explicitly mentioned in the MOS and I personally can't see any reason to remove the flags. (There has been one exception: the Scottish flag vs the Union Jack has periodically caused problems in the Marseille article.) I am more concerned about the coats of arms that somebody has recently added next to the countries in the Europe article: the coats of arms give no extra information visually. If these changes about twin towns were being made systematically or consistently, there might be some point. Otherwise it just seems a little spooky. Will the following list articles also become part of your crusade: List of twin towns and sister cities in France, List of twin towns and sister cities in the United Kingdom, List of twin towns and sister cities in Russia, List of twin towns and sister cities in China, ... ? Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The principle of MOSICON is that we should not use images, especially flags, unless they add information or aid navigation. In the list articles, it is arguable that the images aid navigation. What justification would you use to argue for the icons' retention on individual articles? I can't see it myself, though I am open to discussing it with you. In order to facilitate harmonious discussion, it might be best to avoid using terms like "crusade". Cheers, --John (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that others who added originally the flag icons to numerous city articles such as

Nashville, Tennesee, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago. My guess is that you are slightly misinterpreting the guidelines. If you tried the experiment of removing the flags from Los Angeles or Chicago, what do you think would happen? Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have an encyclopedic purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose. Consider using bullet points as an alternative layout marker. Without making assumptions about the presumed motives of the editors who added these decorations, what justification would you use to argue for the icons' retention? --John (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Since the same discussion seems to be taking place in at least three different venues, I opened up a general discussion at WikiProject Cities after reading comments on Talk:Los Angeles and on Talk:Chicago. Please comment there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First I'm on a "crusade" and now I have a "bee in [my] bonnet"? You'll find a credible answer to the question I asked you (twice) above will be much more effective in resolving this than insults ever will. I see you haven't been blocked for a couple of years now; let's try to keep it that way, eh? This is a discussion about flag icons, and does not require anybody to be

uncivil. --John (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Timeshift9

While I don't personally agree with some of its contents, a lengthy discussion was had in earlier times in the relevant forums about this page, and the latest campaign against it appears to be simply a vendetta by a new user who doesn't like him. Would you reconsider your deletion of it, at least while the new user's conduct is still being reviewed at AN/I? Orderinchaos 09:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted with you at AN/I and am now looking at the OP's conduct in some detail. Is there an encyclopedic reason to keep this material? If you really think so I am happy to undo my deletion while we talk about it. --John (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More a courtesy reason. Instant-deletion is usually confined to outright violations, not simply contentious content. The user is a regular, not blocked or otherwise sanctioned in any way, and I think he can be reasoned with to tone it down a little if engaged at his talk page. Orderinchaos 09:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will restore it; just reassure me you're familiar with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 when making this request? --John (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep (I thought I had participated in it, but clearly not). I realise that if discussion fails, MfD round 2 is the likely result :/ Orderinchaos 09:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, Please be assured I did not raise the issue to be spiteful. The page clearly breaches the policies, and has apparently in the past. I did make some mistakes in regards to the Australian Greens left-wing dispute. But I am a new editor, and I am trying to learn. Everyone makes mistakes. So to try and become a better contributor I have created the following pages today and working on them for local elections here in Australia: New South Wales local elections, 2012, Ballina Shire Council elections, 2012, Canada Bay Council elections, 2012, Manly Council elections, 2012, Byron Shire Council elections, 2012, City of Botany Bay local elections, 2012, Sydney City Council elections, 2012, Newcastle City Council elections, 2012, Lake Macquarie City Council elections, 2012 and more. I am going to put up the results as they come through. Everyone deserves a second chance, and nothing I did was in anyway unforgivable. Thanks in advance. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the user page per your reasonable request, Orderinchaos. Welshboyau11, please be aware that your conduct is under extreme scrutiny. --John (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries and thanks. :) Orderinchaos 10:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to show you, John. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You're entirely welcome, Orderinchaos. My feeling is though that, as this has previously deleted at MFD, unless there are compelling reasons raised in the central discussion not to, it should be deleted again. But let's see what folks say first. Welshboyau11, once again, please step away from this whole area, as you've made your point. Let others look at it now. --John (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm in agreement. I don't see it in its present form surviving a 2nd MfD, but I think if given a chance to fix it, he likely will. My view on UPNOT/NOTBLOG is that harmless content is fine, but stuff which would otherwise violate WP core policies is not. Orderinchaos 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I've just extended the block on Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) to indefinite as it appears that he or she is the latest sockpuppet of another editor (details at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11) - I should have twigged to this earlier. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had a funny feeling about that one. Thank you for doing the due diligence. --John (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outwith

Are you seriously going to try and claim that "outwith" is a term people outside of Scotland actually understand?

WP:MOS#Vocabulary says one should avoid words that are "unnecessarily regional, or that are not widely accepted". —Tom Morris (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you seriously going to try and claim that "outside of" is a term people outwith the United States actually understand?

WP:ENGVAR for a reason; you should take a look at it some time. --John (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Explanation

Seeing as that particular incident is covered in the

Operation Wrath of God, singling out casualty figures of this particular episode on the page that focuses on the massacre struck me as tendentious. I will copy this to the talk page if you prefer. Ankh.Morpork 21:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Why did it strike you as tendentious? It seems reasonable to me; as per

WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of the referenced and consensual information contained in the rest of the article. --John (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Many details come under the umbrella of "referenced and consensual information contained in the rest of the article." Singling out the Lilleham affair and a single aspect of it - casualties, among many other spin-off events from the Munich attack such as the assasination of Wael Zwaiter, Mohammad Boudia or the responsive Black September attempt on Golda Meir's life, seemed undue and cited for a specific reason. That said, you obviously disagree and I was evidently presumptuous in assuming that my explanation was as cogent as I thought it was. Ankh.Morpork 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bungled Israeli response seems as important a part of the story as any other and seems to deserve a mention in the lead; why would it not? It's a tragic story. --John (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many would characterise the "response" as successful though noting that particular event. e.g

Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team which inspired Spielberg's Munich presents it as a successful mission that evoked admiration from other services. However in my experience, editors involved in Wiki disagreements that concern Israel are usually entrenched n their position - rightly or wrongly - so I shall stop pleading my case on your talk page and will bring this up on the article's talk page if I can be bothered. Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I am far from being entrenched on this subject, but I would note that killing the wrong person is usually regarded as somewhat of a failure by intelligence services. Getting caught afterwards and banged up in prison makes it a definite, and noteworthy failure. --John (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something that maybe you can explain

There are so many dickheads on this site who claim to be "computer experts", yet almost without exception Wikipedia's computing articles are shite. How can that circle be squared? If you haven't been watching, my frustration stems from the events at

Fatuorum 23:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Before I even look at the content matter in question, it has been my experience that people who are "good with computers" are epically bad at writing, and indeed communication in general. Let me take a look. --John (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi John. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page breaching wikipedia policies, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. --John (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. --John (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only MOSFLAG warrior? Drmies (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love flags, but have long been repelled by their crass and inappropriate use willy-nilly all over the project. It's getting better; the implementation of

capitals in section headings. Why not join one or both of the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities if you are interested? --John (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with maniac IP please

Hi John. The person operating IP 24.184.180.171 has run amok (again) and is removing inter-wiki links. All I can do is rollback the edits, so I wonder if you could take sterner measures? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  22:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I saw this it was pretty stale. Let me know if it happens again.--John (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

• Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

• In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

• Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

• Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

• News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

• Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

• Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notice

There is a Request for comment about the utility/redundancy of

WP:RFC/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French minesweepers Inkerman and Cerisoles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minesweeper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tremendously useful service. Thank you for the notice. --John (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Sorry! Have a virtual beer on me as an apology :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, there was no need. I'm sorry if I was a bit grumpy with you. I gladly accept the beer. Take care. --John (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

My apologies for a bit of snippiness. Princetoniac (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly ok. I appreciate your apology but would never have demanded it. Thank you for showing class. --John (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random IP again

Hi its seems the same person is at it again but on a different IP address, on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_of_Fortune_(UK_game_show) He seems to think the broadcast dates are all wrong and deletes them , ( maybe because he never created them) the dates never come from where he claims but in fact from Newspapers which can be viewed online. --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can they be referenced? Because I saw the IP removing a section which is marked as unreferenced. --John (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Can put in some refs at this moment of time, better QUESTION is why has he left same types of facts on other pages where are also un-ref? Its the same person from Blockbusters pages, He now doing the same for

Now You See It (UK game show) HE EVEN taking out a bit which does have Ref. HE doesnt like so it get taken out... --Crazyseiko (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)--Crazyseiko (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, well the best thing you can do is reference the material the IP is taking out. At that point if it is taken out it becomes vandalism and I can take action. --John (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a ref on Now you see it page, and I will also do the same for some of the date for Wheel. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that looks a lot better now. --John (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a few more ref'sI can place in but the guardian on line sit is not working at the momment, so once that comes back that will allow a few more to be added. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have add in alot of REF for this page, keep an eye out if you can Cheer

Now_You_See_It_(UK_game_show)#Transmissions --Crazyseiko (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I am watching. --John (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Helme

Hi. There is recent regular editing to the article on Chris Helme where a user (previously a dynamic IP based in Yorkshire, now 13EMAIN14) is repeatedly removing referenced text (going from over 20 references down to 4!), which they apparently deem to be negative to the subject (it seems neutral to me - the article gives both sides of the argument regarding the band split and the negative NME review is referenced to illustrate that the first live shows were not positively received and potentially why it was abandoned). The user is also removing the image from the page, which seems most odd. I can't help but think they may be someone connected to the artist. I would appreciate it if you could look at the article and give an opinion on it's content etc and what the best course of action is. Thanks.

Priorbegan1 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please raise his at Talk:Chris Helme in the first instance? --John (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gratitude

Thank you sir.

Utar Sigmal (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kitten. --John (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

Plains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned at ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --JOJ ^Hutton 02:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think I missed the drama there. --John (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBT edit wars

I'd be interested in your talk on the position having had a chance to look at the dispute resolution conversations. You might also want to look at additional postings on the subject on the 3rr notice board, and yet another misleading edit summary from the main protagonist here. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will have a look. --John (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will look forward to your comments. We now also have this arbitration request which has more of the history summarised. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A word of appeciation

Thanks, John, for contributing to the discussion on Gibraltarpedia. I must say that initially I had some difficulty in understanding the problem as I do not usually have a "promotional" style when I write articles. It was only when I took the time to wade through all the lengthy exchanges on the talk page that I discovered the discussion appeared to centre on the word "collaborative". That was indeed my contribution and I first used it in connection with the Monmouthpedia article, replacing "collaboration project" with "collaborative project" which seemed to me to be the more appropriate term for a project involving two or more entities (in the Monmouth case, Wikimedia UK and the Monmouth authorities including the museum, library, etc.). From the initial press reports on Gibraltarpedia, it appeared as if a similar relationship had evolved between Wikimedia UK and the Gibraltar authorities which explains why I used the same term. But while the general setup appears to have been similar, it now emerges that there was no official involvement of Wikimedia UK and, as a result, the term "collaborative" turns out to have been incorrect. But I'm glad you kept insisting it was out of place. Thanks once again for your efforts to improve the quality of the article. --Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It astonishes me that it keeps being replaced when it is so clearly unsourced and promotional in tone. --John (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

• In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

• Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

• WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

• News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

• Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

• Featured content: Dead as...

• Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks.

Thanks for getting on to

WP:ANI? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC).[reply

]

I've done that. --John (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - thank you! Stalwart111 (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Another time you could just tag it with the {{db-hoax}} tag. --John (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair call - will do next time. Cheers! Stalwart111 (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales

• News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners

• Featured content: Mooned

• Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty

• WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than 2 months past

More than 2 months have passed for the President's article in WP:FAR. There is no censensus so the default is to proceed to the next step. I think it can be done in an orderly fashion. Could you do the next step? George Tupou XXI (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE September 2012 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan] 20:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were shaking in your boots, no doubt. Your fur-lined boots, I suppose; do you know we were in the pool this afternoon? ;) Drmies (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to have an excuse to look at AN/I; it represents all that is best in Wikipedia. No pools for us; it's 9 degrees though sunny. On the other hand we have public healthcare and a functioning public education system. --John (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nine degrees? You helping Santa Claus out these days? ;) Is keeping an article such as this in user space legit? Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It hit 16 day before yesterday, positively balmy for Scotland in October. (We are talking Celsius here, yes?) I am not sure about that article. What is its purpose? Is the user working it up for mainspace? Have you asked them? --John (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this and can see your point. I asked them what they want done with it. --John (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had forgotten the Celsius bit...in that case it was about 8 here yesterday. :) I thought that you may be better suited to evaluate a UK sports issue as to whether it had article potential or was too minor...thank you for looking at it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah 8 Fahrenheit would be cold indeed! I don't think it is worth keeping but the editor doesn't seem to have been around for a while. No harm in waiting a week or two before putting it up for deletion. --John (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify notice

Just to let you know that Template:Wikify has been deprecated. Please use Template:Underlinked, Template:Dead end or Template:Cleanup etc. instead. Cheers Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

• News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography

• Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk

• Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis

• Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased

Randall and Hopkirk (One no longer living and lying in a coffin six feet under) better? LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I've always hated euphemism. Just "dead" can look awfully brutal sometimes though. No criticism of your new article was intended though. Moving it out was a good idea. --John (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McEwans

No, not offering you one sadly. I see you've had a look through the article though, so I wondered if you have any opinion on its GA nomination? To be honest, I'm on the point of failing it; seems very light to me.

Fatuorum 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Inclined to agree. It is a little light for a GA, isn't it. You would think there would be more sources on such a popular drink. --John (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain there are. I was 12 when my family moved to England from Scotland, and there are two Scottish TV adverts from that time that stick in my mind. One was for Scots Porridge Oats and the other was for McEwans. Perhaps you remember the McEwans one too? The jingle went like this: "Best buy McEwan's, McEwans, McEwans/Best buy McEwans, the best buy in beer/Och McEwans is the best buy, the best buy ...".

Fatuorum 15:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, wasn't one version of the advert set on the back of a whale? --John (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but this is among the kind of stuff that's missing from the article IMO.

Fatuorum 16:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It was a cultural staple in its day. I think it was one of the first TV ads I ever saw, in about 1971 or so. --John (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

• Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins

• In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page

• Featured content: Second star to the left

• News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks

• Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor.

AutomaticStrikeout 03:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free media (File:ASongofStone.png)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Improving editing

John - I received a message from you after an edit on Edinburgh Fringe. I wanted to include a section about Pay-To-Play at the fringe. an issue that was a major debate at this years fringe festival, has many sources to quote and I felt fitted under the section of Fringe Criticism very well. How would I re-write the following to remove personal analysis? (much appreciate your advice and input)

In 2012 numerous people stood up to the increasing commercialism of the Pay-To-Play fringe venues who have pushed up venue costs and essential marketing and hidden extras, which often mean performers are being charged more than they can hope to make back in ticket sales. How The Fringe is Financed an article you cannot read in The Scotsman points the finger at

Just The Tonic and explains how this pay to play model has developed: ^[1]

Stewart Lee was particularly vocal in this criticism "For decades, the Fringe has been a utopia for artists and performers – but now profit-obsessed promoters are tearing it to pieces.".[2] The Alternative Fringe was set up by Bob Slayer as a statement against Pay-To-Play venues ^{[3] [4]}

Many Fringe commentators agree that the Fringe will have to change and that the independent promoters such as The Stand and The Alternative Fringe who are not charging performers up front fees and hidden costs to use their venues are leading that change. ^[5] Chortle: ^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thickepedia (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Let me have a look at it and I will respond properly later today. --John (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thickepedia (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --John (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added an edited version of your edit. I have to say the first source, being a blog, looks rather weak to me, but we can see what other regular editors there think. --John (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I can see the difference and will aim to follow. I added another reference to the first section from the scotsman newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thickepedia (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, that does look better. --John (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian corvette Navarin

Wrong Dandanelles blockade. Battle of the Dardanelles (1807) is what you wrote. However, year was ca. 1829. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to aggregate this on the article talk page, please feel free, as I am watching that too. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

• My mistake. --John (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. The Russians and the Turks had one war after another. 'You can't tell the players without a scorecard.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do seem to have had a lot of wars. I am a history buff but had not previously heard of the Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829). Thank you for educating me. --John (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this stuff either, and I have a degree in history (not Russian or Turkish/Ottoman) from the University of Michigan. I only learned about this because I was trying to answer the question now pending; and I learned a lot more about the Russian fleet and the Turks than I ever wanted to know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? Category:Russo-Ottoman Wars is quite instructive. --John (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very instructive. I particularly liked History of the Russo-Turkish wars and Template:Timeline of Russo-Turkish Wars which shows that being a Turkish leader is not a long term position. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least it wasn't for a few hundred years! Very nice to meet you, see you around. --John (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. If I can assist, please let me know. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the quick unblock yesterday evening. The situation still hurts (not strange after making this somewhat stupid mistake ..), and I needed a night to try and sleep it off (which did not really work).

On a much lighter note, I did think it quite funny that here, you spell both my, and Elen of the Roads' usernames wrong while saying "Could all users be very careful about referring to other users by anything other than their user name or an accepted version thereof?".

Anyways, again thanks for handling it so quick, really appreciated. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome for the unblock. I am sorry for your inconvenience. Thanks for pointing out the typos. I was very tired last night, and I think that showed. It was an ironic mistake to make. --John (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way..

John, you and I have gone down a lot of roads together. I understand that Malleus has done a lot of good for the project, but I have to believe that the pillars of Wikipedia mean something. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and Malleus passionately is defending the right to call people "dishonest twats" amongst other things. I'm sorry, I disagree.If Malleus could change his behavior to disagree without being disagreeable, I'd change my mind. Then again, if Malleus could change his behavior, we wouldn't have gotten here in the first place. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have, and I always previously respected what seemed your essential fairness and savvy. What you have done here, by extending the remit of the case from a clarification of a rather inept sanction (but one that was arguably working) into an outright ban on one of our best contributors with whom you have previously had bad interactions, looks so corrupt, so vindictive, so downright evil, that I wonder how you and your colleagues can live with what you seem prepared to do. Civility is indeed a pillar of the project, but there is a growing consensus that nobody should be blocked, let alone banned, over it as it is so culturally relative. By attempting to ban Malleus, you are siding with the milquetoasts, the

Randies and the constipated producers of diktats and civility warriors, and against the people who actually write the damned encyclopaedia. You should be deeply ashamed of yourselves. Even at this twelfth hour, you should consider withdrawing your ill-considered motion. Our readers deserve better than this show of administrative petulance and hypocrisy. --John (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If you think it's ok to call people "dishonest twats" and "Dishonest fuckers" (that it shouldn't earn a block or ban) then I would submit that it's you who is out of step with this. Malleus barely avoided a sanction in CE, was just before the committee a couple weeks ago in a case that wasn't accepted. And God help Wikipedia if violating one of the pillars is on a regular basis is somehow acceptable. Because it's not. Malleus has decided that he'd rather retire (or be banned) then act like a civilized human being. That's sad.. he's done a LOT of great work. None of us really doubt that at all. You wonder why Wikipedia has trouble attracting new editors? How about permitting this toxic environment where it's perfectly ok to curse at someone you disagree with. If the Community wants to take to a sledgehammer to one of the pillars of Wikipedia, they can try, but don't be surprised when the whole thing falls on their heads. SirFozzie (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But context is everything, is it not SirFozzie? See my submission at the ongoing civility RfC for my current and somewhat nuanced thinking on civility enforcement. If you see it as your role to force people to behave in what you see as a "civilized" way, without regard to context, you are guilty of valuing subjective judgement over objective quality. If you see your own actions as somehow reducing the "toxic environment", we differ fundamentally. If you see this as somehow preserving a pillar of the community (against the clearly expressed wishes of that community) then I think you are well into WP:POINT territory. I see what you are trying to do as vindictive, counter-productive, and deeply wrong. I see one member of your little kangaroo court who exhibits integrity and insight in this situation. When I voted for you in the ArbCom elections, I thought this would be you. I am deeply disappointed that it is not. --John (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found Elen's statement the height of ridiculousness, and told her so. We have a civility policy for a reason, (a policy which is by far the most supported example at the current Civility RFC, that yes, it needs to be enforced). Maybe it's a different culture, who knows, but I wouldn't want to collaborate with someone who called me a "dishonest twat", and collaboration is what Wikipedia is supposed to be built on. I'm really sorry that our views diverge so much, but if Malleus is not going to take at least a step towards this (and I know Brad has made one more appeal to Malleus, and while I'm not really hopeful, at least there's a chance, right?), then the end result is fore-ordained.. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a civility policy, but we also seem to have a growing consensus that it is unenforceable, precisely because of cases like the one you have just exacerbated with your divisive actions. I noticed you saying something about a three-to-one majority in favour of "enforcing" civility. Where did you pull that ratio from? I didn't see your comment to Elen in your contributions; that must have been off-wiki? It is indeed a different culture; having lived for years in both, I can say that in the US the appearance of civility is valued over honesty; in the UK the balance is somewhat reversed. While I agree that saying someone is a "dishonest twat" is unfortunate, it is not as bad as actually being a "dishonest twat". Perhaps we can agree on that? I appreciate the intelligence and humanity that Brad has shown in his appeal to Malleus; I really wish that that was you. --John (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Elen said the same thing elsewhere, I replied to her there. And Brad has a way with words. I tried saying the same thing on MF's page "Malleus, I don't want to ban you. Honestly, I don't. If you honestly say something like, "I disagree, but I will try to moderate my intemperate attacks in the future. I just ask for some leeway, as this will be difficult", then I'd rescind the ban motion right now. But you seem to believe that there's nothing wrong with the comments you've made, and that you have a right and duty to refer to people in such terms whenever you see fit. I disagree. The pillars of Wikipedia disagree." Brad has a way of words that I do not... and I'm heartened that MF did not just dismiss them off hand. I asked the arbs on the mailing list to hold off on voting while MF reviews this,m and hopefully we can all step back from the precipice (I think it's a given that we will disagree with who's to fault that we're AT the precipice, but as I keep saying, that I would much prefer to keep Malleus around if he could just soften the edges a bit) (The ratio btw was on the supports from the RFC/CE that was set up from the LAST MF contretemps at RfArb) SirFozzie (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But JClemens and David Fuchs appear to have disregarded your request. We are in the realm of politics here, something I increasingly despise as I get older (although I don't have a ready alternative for how to run large organisations). If you are talking to other Arbs off-wiki, couldn't the whole thing have been done off-wiki? In reaching out to Malleus on his page right after you had escalated the situation by proposing a ban, there was more than a matter of a way with words different between your approach and Brad's! I continue to think the approach was maladroit, unless the intention was to get rid of Malleus, something you deny. In any case I think I no longer trust your (singular) good intentions or your competence, something that hurts me to write. It also underlines my pre-existing serious reservations about Arbcom's (plural) credibility and fitness for purpose. Although ArbCom doesn't usually let its incompetence and corruption interfere with the production of the encyclopaedia to the extent that it has done here, there are ethical considerations for me to consider when weighing any future contributions I might want to make. I can no more contribute my time and labour to a project that is at its root riddled with evil than I could live and pay taxes in a country that was morally and politically bankrupt. Anyway, that is for me to consider. I hope there will be self-reflection here for you as well, though I haven't yet seen evidence of it. Speaking of dishonesty, by the way, is it true that AGK had undisclosed accounts? I hadn't previously seen that allegation. If true, surely it should be a resignation matter? --John (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A doppleganger account, not something like what people are making it. SirFozzie (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw Kiefer clarify that in response to my query. I suppose it's better that he's incompetent rather than dishonest. We are all volunteers after all. Why should we be competent as well? It makes it all the more unfortunate when we do get someone who is competent like Malleus and he is hounded out by hand-wringing amateurs. Oh well, we get the project and the governance we deserve, in a sense, and if it's the settled will that keeping things "civil" so Randy from Boise will never be shocked by a word he doesn't see in church is more important than keeping quality contributors writing quality content, so be it. To the degree that Wikipedia becomes less an on-line encyclopaedia and more of an experiment in social networking and mediocrity, I become more disillusioned with it. --John (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

	gnome
	Thank you for articles covering South Africa and Scotland, for copy-editing, for designing barnstars, for your collection of quotes on forgiveness, and for your oppose against a main stream, - repeating, you are an awesome Wikipedian (1 November 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)-[reply]

Thank you, that was nice of you. --John (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK's alternative accounts

Hi. I'm afraid if I try to edit

WP:ACC and its predecessors). The only accounts I forgot to add in my nomination statement were these ones

, and I forgot to add them because they were doppelganger or legitimate alternative accounts. I was very embarrassed by this at the time, but nevertheless neither of Kiefer's explanations (that I am "dishonest" or have "trouble reading") are correct; I was simply forgetful.

I'm fast beginning to think that I will resign before this year's elections, because I'm unwilling to tolerate Kiefer's incoherent, aggressive polemics, but whatever happens I'm keen to correct that individual's flagrant misrepresentation of the truth. Given that you are the most recent person to have contacted him about his remarks, I thought that here was a good place to start. Thanks,

[•] 21:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your explanation. I completely accept that it was an honest mistake. I admit I was briefly quite excited by the idea that you had been running undisclosed accounts (which would, as far as I am concerned, be a resignation matter) but also quite happy that this was not the case. I do not think we particularly need any more drama just at the moment. Since you are here, do you think anything I could write, here or at the amendment page, could possibly break the logjam and allow Malleus to continue editing here? Would you reconsider your vote to ban him if I was to offer mentorship and he was to accept? It seems an awful shame to lose such a good contributor. I wasn't going to bother as I am heartily sick of the whole thing, but if there is anything I could do that would actually make a difference... --John (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disappoint you! My first thought is that mentoring Malleus would be about as likely to succeed as buying a puppy leash then trying to use it to walk a tiger. However, if you think a mentorship arrangement would work and if Malleus is willing, I'd certainly consider it. However, I've two things to add. First, I just spoke at the motion regarding what exactly about Malleus I find so disruptive; as a mentor, would you be able to prevent him doing that sort of thing? Second, I would not consider a commitment to mentorship, on its own, to be adequate grounds for reversing the siteban motion (I see a more fundamental problem with Malleus' behaviour) though I would count it considerably in favour of a less extreme motion.

[•] 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's your call, of course, but I think you should stay. --Rschen7754 21:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw I think you should stay also, although I disagree with the current position regarding Malleus...Modernist (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, I am tentatively prepared to contribute again. It will be under my own terms though. --John (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Oppose. You've got qualities we badly need here, John. You're rational and kind but mainly you've demonstrated many times an ability to change your strongly-held opinion in the face of evidence or good argument. That's like hens' teeth around here. For that matter, you're capable of excellent argument yourself, a surprisingly rare talent on a project that is nominally built on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have read your comments on this matter with increasing admiration of the rationality you have brought to this witch hunt. And there's no chance in hell JClemens is going to be re-elected to arbcom in december, or indeed again in the next few years.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot guys, I appreciate it very much. It isn't just Jclemens though; there's a whole corrupt and venial organisation there that enables bullying like that to take place. Maybe after a few weeks away I will miss this place so much I will have to come back; it's more likely that I will take a longer time away. We'll see. I'll still probably look in once in a while to check messages. I'm sure you'll manage just fine without me! Thanks again. --John (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll miss you. For some reason you managed to survive my "great watchlist purge" (though we hardly interact) and I've always wondered what "kt" means. I understand why you're going. I always find that some time away clears my mind and I remember that it's the project itself that's important, not all the crap behind the scenes. Personally I think we need your viewpoint too.
  talk) 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose in part: Connect with this community at a different time, in a different way or even in different places, but please don't disconnect. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• [46]. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey John. For the record I think youve been stand up about all this, I'm really impressed, though I was already, you calm and rational whereas I might be hot headed. Kudos to you. Anyway, dissaffected tune of the now [47]. Bty, really hope to see you back. Ceoil (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto.

My favorite editors rarely deal with non-article space, apart from dealing with style guide and article-related policy issues. I have trouble remembering anybody else from music or mathematics or statistics involving himself for sport in The Dark Side of RfAs, ANIs, RfCs, or ArbCom.

I imagine that persons who enjoy leadership roles in real life also enjoy leadership roles (or feel obliged to help) here too.... But others should shun The Dark Side. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Truthkeeper ("kt" meant "keep together" by the way, I couldn't see the point in threaded conversations spread across multiple pages). Thank you Ceoil, and I am sorry if I was ever any trouble to you. You're obviously a great guy. Love to go for a pint with you in Edinburgh some time. KW I was a pretty active (though not the most active) admin in my time. I used to feel I was benefiting the community by blocking vandals and trolls and mediating disputes. I tried never to feel a sense of superiority. Now I am not sure I belong in a community that doesn't really know what civility is, but is prepared to ban someone for not following it. Shades of fucking Lenny Bruce. And don't even let's start on the liars and abusive arbcom members vomiting all over this great project... Thanks for the messages of support, but when I say I am not editing while Jclemens and his ilk are arbitrating it, I really mean it. Sincere sorry for the folks that are disadvantaged by that, but there it is. --John (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of Lenny Bruce is right - been thinking about him for the last several days in the wake of this shitstorm...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might take you up on that John. If your ever in Cork, I'll show you were to get the best Murphys known to man. ps, past is past, and that time I kind of was asking for it! Were good, in case thats not ever clear. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been in Cork since 1997, but you never know. If I was ever in your neck of the woods I would certainly give you a shout. --John (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

time to step back?

I've stepped back from the DRV, because the temptation of both sides to simply repeat the same argument with a decreasing amount of grace is quite evident. The DRV is a discussion, and I suspect anyone reading it will be able to get where each point of view is coming from, and then judge for themselves. We don't agree - sharply so - and so others will have to judge now. Can I seriously suggest you might want to step back too? It isn't just because you are over-replying (I can't criticise you for that having just done it myself), it is because you are evidently becoming too emotional. If I understand your angle it is that JClemens was out of line to dismiss a committed contributor as not a Wikipedian, and that remarks like that tend to leave people feeling rejected and marginalised. I can get that. But surely, if you are sensitive to the damage that foolish remarks can make to decorum and community cohesion, you really don't want to go about calling fellow Wikipedians "trolls" in edit summaries [48]. It really does undermine your own case for the damage of careless words. Thanks.--Scott Mac 19:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the second half of the edit summary as well as the first, you'll see information that would have made your message unnecessary. --John (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, the first was the bit that troubled me. Personal attacks in text can be re-factored, edit summaries not so much. Anyway, I sense that from opposite ends we've pretty much reached the same conclusion. Peace.--Scott Mac 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now Scott MacDonald doesn't like it when somebody else is name-calling "trolls", despite Scott MacDonald's having recently left this personal attack:

"I really don't know what type of social adjustment problems you may have in real life, so I'm not going to assume too much. However, it is clear to me that not only are you an unsuitable person to be part of the Wikipedia community, you are quite possibly so incapable of self-reflection that you shouldn't be using any online forum at all. I can normally take your trolling as part of the rough and tumble of Wikipedia - that's fine and part of what happens here."

I suggest an auto-block or resignation as an administrator.My naiveté is charming but slow to recognize the reality of Wikipedia.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already indicated Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I will not be entering into any conversation with you ever again. I'd ask you to refrain from trying to engage me in discussion - but whether you choose to respect that request is naturally up to you.--Scott Mac 22:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to withdraw your personal attack, rather. Your choosing to violate Wikipedia's

prohibition against personal attacks is down to you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

New users may guess which user, Scott or myself, received a block warning, from an uninvolved administrator setting an example of civility, AGF, and NPA. Experienced editors who are not administrators can confirm their understanding of double standards, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians

You joined the

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion

.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't think I will. --John (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians: Colloquy

Sorry I just read your comments but the category is closed so I will have to respond here. Hey ho!!

• "It's pretty offensive to equate or compare this overly long, gassy colloquy, which really needs to be closed out by a neutral admin, with Tiananmen Square." (me)
  • "We all find different things offensive I suppose. This category is neither overly long nor gassy; if you mean the discussion is too long I'd probably agree. You've just made it a little longer by commenting, and now I have too by replying. Hey ho. I happen to find it slightly more offensive that someone who got unbanned through the forgiveness of the community is here taking such an illiberal and authoritarian stance on this user category, but hey, there you go." (you)
    • NOTE 1: "I wrote 'colloquy', entirely accurately, not 'category'.
      • NOTE 2: "[s]omeone who got unbanned through the forgiveness of the community is here taking such an illiberal and authoritarian stance on this user category", to which I can only reply:
        no atheists in foxholes
        .

Not that my unban (or anything you don't know or happen to care to know about me) are any of your business. And since when is making an assertion 'authoritarian' or joinging the majority of delete voters 'illiberal'? Only when you disagree, I guess. Quis separabit? 21:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are noted. --John (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My76Strat

Hey….wanted to comment here versus My76Strat RFA page. I have all too often seen conjectural discussions on RFA pages waylay consensus far too heavily than there intend purpose or subject matter. With that said, I respect every opinion expressed (or !vote) in a RFA as an important one. I view each !vote as that individual felt it was important enough to take time out of their day to express their thoughts and concerns either for support or to oppose a given candidate and should be viewed as such. However, I have also seen consensus swing dramatically in RFA’s based on frivolous subject matter that has no correlation to the RFA candidates’ ability to have or not have the mop. I can understand where a person may want an Administrator that can communicate in a style and manner that is easily understandable to them, the !voter. However, what I learned here at Wikipedia is that there are numerous different styles and trying to please one person’s style often displeases an equal number of other styles. So to answer your original question, yes your point makes sense, however, I go with a different mindset, I don’t mind My76Strat style and given that there are no other major reasons to oppose I have to !vote Support. In the meantime have a great Holiday Season and look forward to seeing you here on Wikipedia again. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and no hard feelings, I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the matter. Thank you for the good wishes. --John (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at RfA for Monty845

I apologize for being rude. You're right; it wasn't needed.

talk) 22:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't worry, I've seen worse. I appreciate the apology and there are no hard feelings from me. --John (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Richard Nixon#Image sizes in body

Hi John, please see my comment after your most recent comment here, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"per Funandtrvl" means I agree with you. --John (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

image delete

John, why thw image delete at Concealed shoes it was not thw best but it assisted with the telling of the story I thought? Edmund Patrick – confer 06:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a problem with the copyright and the uploader requested me by email to delete it. Sorry. I will try to find a replacement. --John (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, I will try to find a suitable image as well. Thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 22:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons from me too John, and nice to see you back. You fought the good fight this year, in more ways than one. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil; good to see that the bad guys don't always win here. Have a good holiday. --John (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding a comment you made

You said "KC is definitely not my buddy" here and I'm concerned, do we have some kind of outstanding dispute? I have crap for memory sometimes, if I have left some disagreement unresolved and I can do anything to rectify the situation please do let me know. I honestly cannot remember our interactions, I am so sorry. Thanks in advance - and sorry for the crappy memory - KillerChihuahua 00:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realised that comment could be taken that way and should have taken steps to avoid that interpretation. If we ever have had a disagreement then I have forgotten it too, so you're fine. No, I just meant that I was not someone who would automatically stick up for you but that I was doing so based on the merits of the case. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --John (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh excellent, no worries. I have no issue with your phrasing, just wanted to check to make sure we didn't have some outstanding dispute I had forgotten. All is well. KillerChihuahua 14:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'd hate to fall out with anybody and recent events have shown me that us old codgers should stick together. --John (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear something negative has happened recently (?) but I try to stay on good terms with everyone except vandals and trolls, and I try to remain civil to them. I fail with some, of course. If I ever do anything to which you object, please do feel free to bring it to me and I'm sure we can work it out. KillerChihuahua 02:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy! May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go. -- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis that season again...

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, John! [majestic titan] 06:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you. --John (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Help?

Hello! I would like to request your help on an article I have been adding information to. My work has been reverted several times and I noticed it was done by one editor you have warned about before. I'm not very used to Wikipedia but I'm eager to contribute. Thank you! Hiddendaemian (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest talking direct to the person you are having a dispute with in the first instance. --John (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Please redact the personal attack. You are an admin and should know better. I realize that kwami-bashing is a recognized sport (although one that I deplore), but I am relatively non-controversial, and it would suffice to comment on my views rather than on me personally.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to withdraw this; I do not regard it as a personal attack to point out that you two saying your opinion counts for more than those of recognised style guides or Wikipedia's quality control norms is extremely arrogant. I'm afraid it is extremely arrogant. It would be better for the progress of the article if you were able to climb down from this position. If you are "relatively non-controversial", perhaps you could contribute best by educating your friend in the collaborative ethos that (generally) governs this project. I am definitely not here to engage in "kwami-bashing" as (as far as I can remember) I have never encountered your friend before, but if it is as you say a "recognized sport", there may be a clue in there that his behaviour is in some way provoking people to criticise him, as was the case on this occasion. Specifically, reverts should only be used for vandalism or edits indistinguishable from such. Reverting good faith edits from editors who know what they are doing never goes down well. --John (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Two little heads"? Reminds me of a joke about a mermaid that I won't repeat here. I do not always defend kwami's actions (and have counseled him to observe and then act), but you're not the first admin to spend time dredging up past behavior rather than, or in addition to, dealing with the issue at hand. If dredging up past behavior isn't ad hominem, I'm not sure what is. Irrespective of kwami, I content that your view of the passive voice is antiquated and counterproductive. If you think "arrogant" is a useful way to refer to someone in a content dispute, so be it, but my hat size (which there is no reason to disclose) belies your statement about my head.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. If you were offended by that then I apologise. "Arrogant" is exactly the right way to describe someone who behaves as your friend has, especially as we are prohibited from using stronger language here. I shall try to steer clear of that article in the future; it isn't worth this degree of trouble to clean up one badly-written article, but I shall certainly observe your friend's future career with interest. He hasn't made any friends here, that's for sure. --John (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Kinda. Dear Mentor, here am I back editing a mere few days and another example of embedded Wiki British bias rears it's ugly head. The issue is disambiguation regarding the River Lee; apparently there is some obscure drain by that name in England as well as Cork. Sarah777 (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's awfully nice to see you Sara! Sarah! Hope the holidays are treating you well. Let me have a wee look at the matter you refer to and I'll try to come up with something helpful. --John (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look, it doesn't seem like there should be a problem with having River Lea cover the English river and River Lee cover the Irish one. Let's see what we can do. --John (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I tried to move the River Lee (Ireland) to simply the River Lee, but as I suspected it had previously resided there! So I couldn't. By the way my name is Sarah, with an H, as in the Bible - I hate the name Sara :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at the two relevant talk pages. Maybe there's a project or two which would be worth informing? And I am sorry about the typo, I know your name perfectly well and I mis-typed on my clunky old keyboard. --John (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I was wondering if you'd remember who I was! Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I remember you! I am always happy to help with anything you run into that threatens to diminish your enjoyment of editing. --John (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the lovely picture. Snow in Ireland always makes me think of the Joyce story "The Dead", do you know it? Lovely story if you don't. Hope it continues so lovely and that the New Year is a prosperous and happy one. --John (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP advice

Please advise whether I may have this on my talk page. I have attributed the claim and have avoided naming the individual. Ankh.Morpork 22:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. First of all, what is your purpose in collecting this information on your user talk page? --John (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pondering whether to take this source to RSN to have it's reliability regarding Israel-Palestine assessed. I have re-added this content with a different source, please remove if it contravenes BLP.Ankh.Morpork 12:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say if you're collecting it in the short term for some encyclopedic purpose, that should be okay. --John (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ http://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/how-the-edinburgh-fringe-is-financed-the-article-which-you-cannot-read-in-this-mornings-edition-of-the-scotsman/
2. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/jul/30/stewart-lee-slow-death-edinburgh-fringe
3. ^ http://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2012/03/23/15107/the_edinburgh_fringe_is_the_real_pay-to-play_scandal
4. ^ http://www.theskinny.co.uk/comedy/fringe_2012/302325-stewart_lee_bob_slayer_how_fringe_escaped_its_certain_fate
5. ^ http://www.londonisfunny.com/edinburgh/29258/Edinburgh_Fringe_round-up_II_%E2%80%93_will_2012_be_a_turning_point
6. ^ http://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2012/08/28/16039/the_future_of_the_fringe%3F_think_smaller

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John/Archive_2012&oldid=1192254305"