Talk:Gary Johns

Reversions
has twice reverted me regarding the spelling of "World Health Organization". My first edit had the edit summary "Correct name as used in source; also (MOS:ARTCON) – see https://www.who.int". CatCafe reverted me with "Undid revision. yes maybe, but this is a quote accurate of what he penned." I restored the correct spelling, saying "this is an accurate representation of the source, which I had verified before saving. If you can supply a source which quotes him with the other spelling, please add it." CatCafe did not supply the requested source, but instead again reverted me, merely saying "Undid revision. No you are incorrect, take it to talk." So here we are.

The correct spelling is indisputably "World Health Organization", as evidenced by the usage on the organization's official site, the URL of which I provided in my original edit summary. Wikipedia's policy is to "use the subject's own spelling", unless it's spelled otherwise in a quote. This is in a quote, and I went to the source and checked before my first edit, verifying that the correct spelling was used. CatCafe says the misspelling is in "a quote accurate of what he penned", but when asked for a source, simply says "you are incorrect". What evidence is there that Johns used the incorrect spelling? None has been presented. Without any evidence, we may assume that he followed the same policy that Wikipedia does – to use the actual name of the organization rather than imposing his own spelling preference. Note that the source which uses the "Organization" spelling in the quote is the British newspaper The Guardian; it is extremely unlikely that a British newspaper would alter a quote to change "Organisation" to "Organization".

So, do we abide by Wikipedia policies and use common sense, or just accept CatCafe's unfounded assertion that the misspelling is "an accurate representation"? M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  00:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I made no 'unfounded assertion' - that's your opinion. It's not a misspelling, it's used by the organisation itself - see examples below. And yes it is "an accurate representation" of how non-American spellers might refer to the organisation. And I can find no official dictate by the WHO itself on how others should now spell their name, have you ? CatCafe (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused. In the primary source (#12), which is what we're quoting and to which it has been attributed from the beginning, he spells it with an S. Frickeg (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that, Frickeg. I had attempted to check both sources at the end of the paragraph containing the quote, but that one wouldn't come up, so I could only check the one from The Guardian. Since I found the quote in one source, I thought maybe the other source just pertained to other parts of the paragraph. That other source is now working, so I can verify its contents. When I requested a source for the spelling, it obviously would have been much more helpful for CatCafe to point out this source rather than just saying "you are incorrect". M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  03:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, the source was there all the time, and BTW I had said "but this is a quote accurate of what he penned" - I don't know how much clearer that could have been? His quote, using Aus spelling, was ref #12, written by Johns himself, and directly after the quote. You should have read the source, it was only 6 short paragraphs in. And AGF usually resolves these issues. Also there's no need for you to "Americanize" all the non-American spelling pages - it's culture creep - no offence intended. The WHO organisation itself spells with both, 'World Health Organization' mainly, but 'World Health Organisation' occasionally - see, & . Seems to me both US & UK/AU/NZ/IE etc. spellings of the WHO name are interchangeable. CatCafe (talk)


 * Oh dear CatCafe. At the time I made the "unfounded assertion" comment, it was perfectly applicable. You said "this is a quote accurate of what he penned". That's the kind of thing people say all the time when they believe something, trying to get inside the subject's head, without evidence. When I asked for specific evidence, you refused. Under such circumstances, any reasonable person would conclude that it was an unfounded assertion.You asked for an "official dictate by the WHO itself". If you're looking for something that gives explicit instructions on how to spell their name, well, that's just a ridiculous request. Otherwise, their logo kind of says it all. The fact that the "s" spelling is used a few times on their site is irrelevant, when 98% of the time, they use the "z" spelling. I recently spelled my username differently on my talk page. Does that mean that I'm declaring that as an acceptable spelling of my username? Of course not. Your crusade to change these spellings, citing the MOS as though it wasn't saying the exact opposite of what you're doing, is against Wikipedia policy.I made it extremely clear in my edit summaries that I had seen the source with one spelling and I had not seen a source with the other spelling. When I specifically asked for a source with that spelling, you replied "No you are incorrect". That may have been the most unhelpful edit summary response I've ever seen in my almost 16 years on Wikipedia."You should have read the source" – as I've repeatedly said, I did read the only source available to me at the time. You should have mentioned the other source. I had no way of knowing if the site was permanently down or if it was just a temporary issue, but I certainly would have tried it again if you had given any indication other than just telling me I was incorrect. It's hilarious that you say "AGF usually resolves these issues". You've shown no AGF here. These issues are usually resolved when the source is specified. All of this could've been avoided if you had included something such as Frickeg's helpful comment in your edit summary.Speaking of AGF, you accuse me of trying to Americanize' all the non-American spelling pages". You say "no offence intended", but it is incredibly offensive. I never inappropriately change any spellings to "Americanize" them. This has absolutely nothing to do with Americanization. It is purely and solely about adhering to the Manual of Style.  M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Settle down Mandarax, and if you're so incredibly offended by my comment of Americanization, then perhaps you need a break from WP. You initially stated you "went to the source and checked before my first edit, verifying that the correct spelling was used", that's obviously false. Also, the page has a '{{Use Australian English' tag, perhaps respect that. CatCafe (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, now you're resorting to personal attacks, claiming that what I say is "obviously false". I understand you getting defensive because I pointed out how poorly you've handled this, but that's no excuse. Please reread what I wrote, and you will see that I clearly identify the source I checked before my first edit as the one from The Guardian. Go to that source and verify for yourself that it uses the "z" spelling. Please check your facts before labeling something as "obviously false". The {{tl|Use Australian English}} tag is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. I always respect such tags where applicable. The relevant guideline is MOS:ARTCON. Perhaps you should respect that, rather than perverting it to your own usage, as you did in the edit linked to above. If all of this is too difficult for you to understand, maybe you need a break from WP. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this matter is resolved satisfactorily to all concerned. Perhaps everyone might have been slightly clearer in their communication. I'm not sure how useful this subsequent back-and-forth is, so I suggest everyone move on. Frickeg (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was just about to ask the same thing Frickeg, and I consider it settled. I stand by that the WHO changes the spelling and language of it's name depending on regional variations - as an example, see L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé used here.. There's no crime in such variations. CatCafe (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I'll note that CatCafe was blocked multiple times, mostly for edit warring, but also for "bad faith argumentation" and making personal attacks. The above violated a condition of a prior unblock to "refrain from personal commentary going forward". The user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.  M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  19:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)