User talk:John/Archive 2013

Happy New Year 2013
May the New Year bring everything you wish for and more! Wishing you and yours all the very best. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, --John (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Thanks a lot, Sandy. --John (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I lol'd
At this. And of course, I couldn't agree more.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the support. --John (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. Always a pleasure to back a man who has enough integrity and good sense to see things as they are. Kurtis (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Help at the Liana Cornell article please
Hi John. There's a little trouble at the Liana Cornell article with which I've unfortunately got involved today. The article is pretty dreadful, and to be honest (and despite my inclusionist tendencies) it is probably pushing the notability boundaries (let's be honest, appearing in five episodes of a TV series, studying at an acting school, and being the daughter of a minor television personality probably isn't enough; is it?). I'm not the only editor who has questioned the claims of the subject being called a "model", however there is now an editor who thinks that minor mentions in sources (and none to specific modelling assignments) is enough for inclusion in: the article text, infobox, and categories of "model". I made one this morning, however I'm happy to leave the article alone pending what others say. Apart from the article itself (about which I'd be keeon to hear your opinion), I'm having trouble convincing that editor not to post on my talk page (despite repeated requests) as I believe that the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page so that other editors can be involved. Thanks in advance for any advice that you can give on this matter. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems marginally notable. I cannot see the "model" claim in the source so I have asked the other editor. --John (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking me instead of calling me a liar and blindly reverting my sourced edit. I think someone could learn from your example. Yes, notability is marginal but that's not the reason for that request above. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideas?
Hi John,

Looking through the edit history at Cannabis (drug) I see we are having the same issues with the same editors as you have dealt with there in the past. We're talking about it here - I wondered if you had any ideas for how to put a stop to this slow, ongoing edit war.  petrarchan47  t  c   08:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Flagators is now using a sockpuppet to pursue inane campaign
I see that you have already had to deal with this single-issue new account. Well, it looks like they have just discovered the sockpuppetry ploy. Oh joy. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. What a sterile dispute. Could you take it to WP:SPI? I think I am too involved to block. --John (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Mais oui! (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick work! Let's see what happens. --John (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Beijing: Air Quality
erm... that was quick. And total.

Sources would be nice, yes. But, which aspect of this contribution needs sources?

PM2.5 is from coal smoke, isnt it?

Should a new section be added?

~ripe.program 22:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripe.program (talk • contribs)
 * Everything here needs to be verifiable, so there needs to be a source for everything you add. --John (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

verifiable or verified?

I am aware of this problem. To say 'everything needs a source' is over-inclusive, isn't it? Many other points are made, on Wikipedia in general and even within this same section, without citations.

As i stated, data on the percentage contribution of heat generation to pm pollution is not available (or existing). But no figure is cited.

On the other hand: 1. heating is provided by coal, as described: This is common knowledge. Discuss... Is there any resident of Beijing who would suggest otherwise? Would you? 2. coal burning contributes to air pollution: any suggestions?

Those the only two points being made.

On the broader question of contribution: Admissibility of information: regarding knowledge of China, one must make certain allowances, or simply accept a state of un-knowing. As the science fiction writers used to say, to proceed by eye rather than pi. Is a blank really better than a description? Discuss?

In general, I agree, it would sure be nice to see someone, somewhere, who has published some semi-official material on this subject. Then, I could simply say: "According to...". That such material is not available in english is not surprising, at all. Who talks about small scale coal use in China? Who can talk about it?

Wouldn't it be better to make a specific challenge to the material? Wouldn't that make the page better, as in, more informative, interesting?

Would you say, I should tone it down? Is the 'small nation' comparison too stark?

At your service, ~ripe.program 22:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripe.program (talk • contribs)


 * See WP:NOR. --John (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the entry from yesterday, and re-parsed and re-written it. Please take a look; I think it is much improved, making the same point while depending on more verified statements. ~ripe.program 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripe.program (talk • contribs)


 * It's nicely written but it still needs to be verifiable. --John (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangers FC article
Hiya John,

If i have to add any text to the article could you verify the English ie spelling, grammar and punctuation? making sure the article reads well and continues it slow progress to GA. Whenever i add anything i am spell checking it but that does not always work 100% works most times but it certainly doesn't fix grammar or punctuation errors or errors like there should be their. I know you do watch the page and update it when you can but if you are able to do it it saves me hunting down a copyeditor to fix my mistakes and i can just let you know on your talk page i have added something what it is and where. If you to busy no worries i will get it fixed eventually just might not be soon after adding Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Andrew, it will be my pleasure to help out there in any way that I can. Thank you for asking. --John (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi John, Can you verify this i know looking at it it does not read right but i am not sure how to fix it "and by 1877 Rangers had reached a Scottish Cup final but after drawing the first game rangers refused to turn up for the replay and the cup was award to Vale of Leven but won the Glasgow Merchants’ Charity Cup the following year against Vale of Leven 2-1 so winning there first major cup." i added the bit " but after drawing the first game rangers refused to turn up for the replay and the cup was award to Vale of Leven but won the Glasgow Merchants’ Charity Cup the following year against Vale of Leven 2-1 so winning there first major cup." after finding a source to verify the statement i noticed it also meant about this so thought it should be meantioned :) Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Baklava
I left you some baklava over at Commons, because I'm just cool that way.

Take care, and drive safely. =) Kurtis (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --John (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question
First, yes I think the block for was warranted. Second, I find comments such as these deeply offensive. Can anything be done? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a proposal here and here which I hope may help. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better than anything I could do. I'm reduced to sputtering - which is why I'm not, nor will ever be, an admin. I'll weigh in at AN/I in a little while. I'm a little leary at this point because I didn't know the 88 in my username identified me as a neo-nazi. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that. It's some numerological thing about Hitler's birthday, or something. I don't think you're a neo-Nazi, or if you are you keep it well hidden. --John (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting sociological question on Wikipedia. I wonder if things had gone better for Malleus if he hadn't chosen that username. If I were, say Arwen, maybe everyone would bow down and be sweet. Makes you wonder. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I were you I would really change my user name. It's not just the 88 (H = 8th letter of the alphabet, and 88 is a code originally used by German Nazis to prevent criminal prosecution when they would rather say "Heil Hitler"; similarly 18 = "Adolf Hitler" and maybe some others). I think most experienced Wikipedia editors think of WP:TRUTH when they see your user name. Hans Adler 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly I think I've been very stupid and naive. This is more often than not really not a nice place. Instead of changing my user name, I'll consider quitting. I have a lot of edits and it's a pain to change - if it's a problem, then WP can well do without my contributions. And having just checked my email and found it full of hate mail, I don't really think this is anything I want to deal with. There's been too much in the past year or so. I'm a content editor, or try to be, and am not here to push an agenda or to fight with trolls. I try to come here to relax. I guess if people see a problem with the user name it should just be reported. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the hate mail. I got several versions of it, and at least one other editor also got them. Apparently it's a well known long-term vandal unrelated to the current dispute. Quitting is always a good idea, but if you do it, do it for a different reason. Also, if you ask nicely it may be possible to change your name preserving all your edits. Hans Adler 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper, can you help me understand how this is offensive? Thank you, HaugenErik (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your extension of the block made me feel guilty of having made him unwittingly broken his topic ban, by continuing to drive the discussion forward. I honestly didn't consider that you meant it to apply to discussing the topic on his userpage. But I do agree that it probably should - but obviously other editors shouldn't be talking about it there either. Perhaps for the sake of my conscience you could say that that point is made now and then shorten his block back to the original length? Then I promise not to post at his talk again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. --John (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. I only kept going because I was feeling there was a chance of getting through to him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, that was nice of you. --John (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * you are officially a useless joke. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I don't mind the user venting on his talk page about the injustice of the ban, but I will block the next time they breach the ban. Thanks for your support. --John (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I will not plea again if he breaches the topic ban. We do require a minimal amount of clue in our editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * John, a quick point about one minor thing here. You noted on the editor's talk page that this was misusing a source. I don't think it is misusing that source. The content discussion behind all this is which definition of "ethnicity" to use, and the source linked to in that diff is one that backs up this editor's preferred definition. Of course the point may very well remain that this editor needs to recognize consensus and stop beating the proverbial dead horse, so I'm not saying your block was wrong or anything. I also don't see how the other diff you noted there is racist, but perhaps that is less clear. I guess my point is that this editor is making some coherent arguments for using the term "ethnicity" in a certain way, and it probably isn't useful to discount those arguments or imply that making them at all is a problem. It isn't. Instead, we should focus on getting this user to stop making them in a disruptive way and recognize when the fight is over. HaugenErik (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're seriously suggesting that this source backs up the user's claim that "you can't change your ethnicity", then I don't think there is much for us to talk about. Would WP:RSN agree, do you think? Or is it, as someone said, a low-quality source which confuses the ideas of "race"and "ethnicity"? --John (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an example of a published, likely professionally written work that uses the word the way Guitar thinks it should be used. I'm not suggesting it is enough to carry the day by any means—sure, it's a "low quality source" for answering this question. But certainly examining how the term is used in published English is useful in determining how we should use it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other diff, I didn't say that it was "racist", I said that it was an "offensive racial statement". This relates to "Jews have mostly genes from the middle east, but they also have genes of people who converted to Judaism or from the pogrom rapes." I think I stand by my assertion that a pattern of making statements like this indicates someone who should stay away from this area. --John (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously I agree in principle, but please be careful with the details so this doesn't blow up. E.g., I hope you will not try to enforce the topic ban again before it is official because the discussion has been closed with a consensus. See WP:BAN. Also, maybe try to be a bit more careful with the justifications so they really can't be misread as content disagreements. While Guitar hero tends to overstate things, there is always a kernel of truth and there are other editors who agree with him, even on extreme points such as Marx not having been German. (He isn't even pushing this anymore, though he hasn't gone so far as to withdraw it. Others are pushing it now.) Hans Adler 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Moot now. Hans Adler 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a funny feeling something like this would happen. Thanks for your interest and it is good to see you back. --John (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Toomanyflags
I noticed you recently created toomanyflags, which will categorize articles into categories such as Category:Wikipedia articles needing editing for flag use from January 2013. There are a few things that need to be done so that the bot will correctly create these maintenance categories so they don't show up as red links on articles; see Creating a dated maintenance category for details. Please let me know if you have any trouble with that. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dates
WP:DATEFORMAT allows for a few acceptable date styles, as long as they are consistent throughout an article. Please do not change an article to a different date format with no reason. -TinGrin 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If only you had read down the page a few paragraphs you would have come to WP:STRONGNAT which perfectly answers your question. --John (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Elephant copyedit
Thank you for copyediting the article. Please inform me when your finished. LittleJerry (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I noticed it was at FAC and thought I would take a wee look. It's looking ok I think. Anything particular you think needs done? --John (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you look through every subsection to make sure the prose is okay or maybe do a review on the page? LittleJerry (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will look in the next few days. --John (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I enjoyed working on it. Good luck. --John (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume you are finished (you did a little more ce after your support). Sandy as struck her oppose. LittleJerry (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I reckon it's good to go. --John (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI
I'm curious about process now on YRC, after he post a morsel of remorse. Is it a matter of inviting all those who have expressed their views to confirm or revise those views? Are we meant to re-start the discussion somehow? The discussion as it stood already leads to a pretty clear conclusion (imo). What next, at this stage? It's also troubling to imagine that the outcome here might work out to be de-sysop for Maunus and scot-free for YRC, especially given the restrictions YRC had agreed to live with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view those restrictions were pretty draconian. I am all about getting the job done and if YRC undertakes not to do it again that is good enough for me. Others may have their own standards. --John (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce lip-sync article
Could you cut and paste this article from where it starts "Unbeknowst to millions of viewers"? It's only available to subscribers. On Beyoncé's talk page. thanks!--Aichik (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't do that. --John (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC
I've responded to your oppose. -- JDC808  ♫  19:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have commented there. --John (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just checking to make sure that you hadn't forgotten about this (your comment is under Various comments). -- JDC808  ♫  06:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look tonight. Sorry for the delay. --John (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All points addressed. -- JDC808  ♫  21:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, can you delete all of the stubs created by User:Jaguar in the past two days, they're full of errors, it's not as if it's just one minor error which can be fixed using AWB. Except Qingfengdian. I've and two other editors have picked up on the errors and have warned him and he has agreed that it's best to quick delete them to avoid it blowing up into something nasty. I don't want to see him repeat what he did last year, so I'm stepping in over this as he's too good to be producing these flawed stubs. I tried to expand a few but they're so riddled it's just better to delete them and start again. I'm hoping he'll learn to produce articles efficiently and accurately. If you could delete them as soon as you can I'd be grateful.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  00:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. --John (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --John (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  01:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. --John (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Harrison FAC
Thanks again for all your helpful edits and insightful comments. I noticed that you removed a serial comma from the Cancer section header; should we also remove the last comma in the section header: "Family, friends, and interests"? I don't feel too strongly either way, but Evan had implemented the serial comma in the article several months ago and I don't want to edit war or argue with anyone over its use, but I also don't want inconsistencies at the page. Perhaps I am missing something here that you could explain to me, cheers! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  02:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought a long time about that comma. I just thought the new longer heading looked better without it. I won't be offended if you restore it but removing the other one might be better. --John (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  06:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC
I've addressed all of your points. Could you take a look? -- JDC808  ♫  21:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't want to sound like I'm rushing you, but could you see if I satisfied your issues? -- JDC808  ♫  18:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a look. I am sorry it probably wasn't what you wanted to hear. --John (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have responded. -- JDC808  ♫  17:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw, and I am sorry it seems you do not value my opinion. --John (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited End Conscription Campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Democratic Front (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) 11:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, fixed. --John (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Tabloids
Sorry, found this a bit odd: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Clarkson&curid=265586&diff=539295534&oldid=539294192 What exactly is wrong with tabloids? Are you considering them to not be a reputable source? It's a bit odd since the person in question actually writes for one! Should we ignore everything he says in his own column just because its in a tabloid? Narom (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you have already answered that with an earlier revision. Why is it necessary to remove the original source of his opinion, which he wrote, to leave only a source which is then hidden behind a paywall that not many people are going to look at especially when the first source is free-to-view? It reeks of snobbery. Narom (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLP, WP:IRS and WP:RSN passim. --John (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They all confirm they are perfectly good as secondary source, but for some queer reason you removed them anyway. Narom (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:BLP, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." --John (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC) And WP:BLPSOURCES has a more detailed prohibition on using tabloid trash to write about living people. --John (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Markchapmanmugshot.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Markchapmanmugshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nightwash
Thanks for that, can you do the remainder on the talk page?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC) I filled in Klaus-Jürgen Deuser, can you translate from German wiki whenever you feel like it of course! I'll source it after you've done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --John (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, within the next hour or so. --John (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me a bit longer. It's done now. --John (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK I've been learning the intro to this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks hard, you must be a lot better than me on the guitar. --John (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, flamenco is technically very demanding. I'm gradually picking it up, as I am jazz guitar. have memorized all of the notes for this, but I can currently only play at 33% pace on VLC media player! The licks literally need to be engrained in your brain to be able to play them that fluently takes time to get them up to pace. I used to just play rock and blues but I found jazz and flamenco much more demanding and requires far greater ability on the instrument. I also learn things finger picking things and classical pieces which are also very challenging. It is very rewarding for me to learn a piece and its scary how much potential there is! Guitar playing and music will always be my thing, nothing makes me happier. Started Belgian Quarter (Cologne), I've hidden the text in it, that was the last one I wanted to do for that Nightwatch article,so I won't pester you with another one, perhaps in a few days hehe.. What are your interests on wikipedia? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I like everything. Especially chemistry, history, war, aviation, space, music, football. Let me know if I can ever help you again, it would be a pleasure. --John (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if you enjoy this, this is true mastery.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. --John (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you translate Belgian Quarter (Cologne) then. text is hidden in the page. If not, let me know, no worries.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get to this last night, I will try for tonight. --John (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kalahari Surfers albums
Category:Kalahari Surfers albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Markchapmanmugshot.jpg
Hi John. I have deleted the mug shot. There was still one non-free file on the page; it's the famous shot where Lennon is autographing the album cover. So I have put that one in the info box. Please feel free to contest this decision if you disagree. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I do disagree that the image qualified for speedy deletion. --John (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Before I open a DRV, when you deleted, had you read File talk:Markchapmanmugshot.jpg and User talk:Crisco 1492/Archive 38? I believe it needs to go through WP:FFD if a speedy is contested. --John (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read it, and then thought about the problem for quite a while. There were five non-free images in the article, and four of them were nominated for speedy deletion, so I deleted those four, and moved the one remaining file to the info box. My rationale for deleting it is that for living people we normally do not keep any non-free images at all; to keep even one is an exception to the norm. I think the correct procedure is for the decision to go to Deletion Review for further discussion, not to FFD. -- Dianna (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedurally I feel you made a mistake. I also wish you had used some common sense; the reason we do not normally use nonfree images of living people is that they are generally considered as replaceable. It is hard to argue that this is the case here. Sigh. --John (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we would have a hard time selling the need for two non-free images in this article, and my opinion is that the one with Lennon is more relevant and more compelling than the mug shot. If you disagree with this decision, please go ahead with a deletion review to get some wider community input. -- Dianna (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you based your decision to implement a contested speedy deletion on your opinion about which picture was better? I think this was poor judgement and counter to our norms. --John (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Clafa.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clafa.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is actually my own work from very early in my career at Wikipedia, but I also think it isn't my best work so I have happily deleted it. --John (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Reactions to death of Hugo Chavez too long?
Hi, I recently edited that page to add the reactions of the Mexican government, and I noticed you put a "too long" tag on it. There are pages such as International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi or Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden that are even longer than this one. So far, it seems fine. Maybe Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Colombia's sections are a bit long, but considering those countries were quite close to Venezuela, it makes sense. I just don't think it's "fluff" as you called it. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we disagree. Having a long section purely made up of conventional expressions of condolence and little flags does not seem encyclopedic to me. --John (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's necessary, since some of them do contain important information (days of mourning, for example). Also, in cases like this one the reactions were extremely mixed, which help show the relations between both countries involved (consider that there aren't pages for every single bilateral relation). Chavez was a controversial leader as well, so I expect reactions from some other countries to be different than conventional expressions of condolence. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that gives us something to look forwards to, eh? It's pretty banal so far, you have to admit. --John (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but it's only been a day, so maybe by the end of the week it will have more interesting reactions to read. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for NightWash
The DYK project (nominate) 08:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Klaus-Jürgen Deuser
The DYK project (nominate) 08:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Help wanted
A blast from the past. Added an article but I'm a bit rusty! Sarah777 (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, nice to see you. It looks good. A map wouldn't go amiss, I'm thinking. --John (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But what about the duplicity?? Sarah777 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, I wasn't clear. It looks like WW2censor sorted it for you. --John (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Recurrence of blocket sockpuppet
Further to our exchange at your Talk about a month ago, the same User is at it again now that their 2 week block has expired. I have requested temp semi-protection of the John Logie Baird article. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is worth a look as well. I suggest reopening Sockpuppet investigations/Flagators/Archive might be better than semiprotection. --John (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Abala, Niger
hi, any chance you could translate this from here?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --John (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, thanks! That's a real honour to get that one. --John (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow thanks! It's a beautiful article. --John (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

George Harrison
Hi, John. Since you commented at the original FAC for George Harrison, I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving it a second look for the current FAC when you get a chance. As always, any input you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was watching and will try to have a proper look when I can. --John (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with IP
Hi. I'm having trouble discussing genre changes with an IP at Are You Experienced. After reverting my cleanup of his OR-filled, poorly cited genre addition, he avoided commenting on the content and once again accused me of something and threatened to "report me" somewhere at this talk page. My attempts to his talk page before were deleted by him, and soliciting comments from other editors naturally led the IP to comment similarly (here and here). Could you comment at Talk:Are You Experienced? Dan56 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That's it I just reported you, to the last admin that blocked you. enough of this foolishness Quit trying to Edit war as you down here 1, sock puppeting as you done with 82.39.108.194, EDIT WARRING BY PROXY(Having others revert edits for you) [2], [3] [4], Violation of WP:Npov and Harassing me/Spamming me talk page with warnings/messages--75.65.123.86 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected a week, and made a suggestion at article talk. --John (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Metalloid
I've come up with three options for formatting the definitions section, here, in such a way as to reduce the impact of or eliminate the need for embedded lists. Could you have a look please and let me know how they stack up? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look. --John (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol Laws of New Jersey
Thank you for your edits to alcohol laws of New Jersey. The changes look good. One question - does Wikipedia have a policy about the sizes of pictures? I noticed that you shrunk most of them. DavidinNJ (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IMGSIZE. --John (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidinNJ (talk • contribs)

DavidinNJ (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Polishing the prose
A year or so ago we had an exchange of views about an article I'd been chiefly responsible for. You have probably forgotten it, but I was, I now think, discourteous about your suggestions for redrawing the prose. Permit me to apologise and to say that dipping into FAC articles to do what good I can I keep running across your contributions and am greatly impressed by the extent and the precision of your work to polish the prose of FA candidates. No reply needed to this. Tim riley (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No apology was necessary but it is extremely handsome of you to offer one. It's also highly appreciated that you have noticed and are pleased with my work. Thank you, and let me know if there's anything specific I can do for you. --John (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha! A rash offer! My stuff pops up at peer review and FAC from time to time. I shall take your comment above as licence to importune you for your input. I need hardly say that my reviewing services, such as they are, are at your service when wanted. Tim riley (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and you are welcome. --John (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Dostoevsky
Hello John,

I posted my views on Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive2. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I can not see any samples, nor do I know what you mean with "brilliant" prose. There is quite simply no "brilliant" prose. One would find that formal language is "brilliant", other American English, and other British English. If you find there are distinct prose issues, then I would be happy to hear a few samples. However and nethertheless do no harm and are quite helpful in some cases. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your attempt to change the criteria. My opinion stands all the more strongly. --John (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, are you judging the article or the criterions?--Tomcat (7) 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am judging that the article does not currently meet the criteria; that is what FAC is for. --John (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Naval History
Aye there, 'John', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (covering the 1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical 13
Regarding. The blink was removed after User talk:Technical_13; would you be able to review User talk:Technical_13 and User_talk:Launchballer, to see if you could suggest any suitable next steps of guidance. —Sladen (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Let me think. --John (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fired a shot across their bows. I very much hope that will be sufficient. --John (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a decent shot. T13 had a go at me about my sig earlier, and then opened a dispute resolution case about it! I was tempted to deploy the cute puppy, but I feared T13 would not cope well with irony Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI. Pretty sure it's a revenge nomination for some TfDs I filed (see T13's talk page). He appears to think that I have a vendetta against him. I don't; I just think we hit both "competence is required" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" some time ago. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   16:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * John, thanks for that. Hex: I am beginning to wonder.  T13 was defending the ~33 Article-space edits in the last couple of months as being a good start for a beginner—yet at the same time there are ~200 non-Article-space edits in the last couple of days.  Perhaps T13 will take a break as hinted, return as ShoeMaker and turn over a new leaf. —Sladen (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think I will leave it at that for now. If there is anything else I can or should do, please let me know. --John (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm so sorry to have to ask you about this - particularly as it probably falls foul of WP:STICK. You said on his page that if there were any more signature related shenanigans regarding him you'd block him indefinitely. A couple of his edits at Template talk:Usbk involve him chastising mine; please do what you feel necessary.-- Laun chba ller 00:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him and raised the block at AN/I for review. --John (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not planning to touch it, but there's a possibility that T13's latest unblock appeal might not be turned down unilaterally (depends on who's reviewing it, I suppose) - since the reviewing admin will probably want to check with you first, you may want to add some comments at his talkpage. All the best. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't think I have anything to add to my AN/I report and my comments at the user's talk page. I may change my mind. --John (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I very much agreed with your indef in this case, but I thought I'd let you know I've unblocked. With any luck the block (and the conversation that followed) has served as an adequate clue-adjustment tool in this case. If you disagree then feel free to reblock. I appreciate that there is a degree of irony here, which didn't occur to me until after I'd hit the button. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me, if you really think that there is evidence of learning on Technical's part. Maybe with the right support this user could become an asset. Irony? How do you mean? --John (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A fortnight on and . I don't know if I can help much more if it's now seen as hounding/sticking and we've got "Not going to see many article space edits from me likely for the next few months" in the same breath.  Suggestions?  —Sladen (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie on this one. If he does something actually disruptive, the next step would probably be AN/I. As User:Thumperward has unblocked with my consent I could not now reblock even if I wanted to, and currently I don't think it is warranted anyway. --John (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * *nod*. Ta. Think I'll unwatch for the moment and leave things to play out as they do. —Sladen (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As an ordinary editor I have tried rather hard to guide him. It has not been a totally successful exercise, and I have wound up offending him, which I am sad about and had not intended to do. I agree that no block is warranted, tempting as it is at times to wish for it, but guidance to work on articles might be useful at times. I would stop interacting but he has shown an interest in areas I have edited in historically, am active in today, and have strong feelings about the outcomes of discussions in those areas, some of which are happening on my talk page :( . Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sheepish ...
After your excellent efforts at Middle Ages, reducing my bloat, I've gone and added a bunch more - needed to cover women, a bit more on social life and some stuff on Jews and coinage. I *think* i'm all done now. I hope. Maybe. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh. Yeah. Think you could take another look? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd love to. It's a beautiful article and I have learned a lot by reading and copy-editing it. I look forward to reading the new material. --John (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look. It looks fine. I had a few wee hacks here and there. Nice work. --John (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War
Hi, John. Do you plan to finish your review of Uruguayan War? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I will give it a proper review in the next 24 h. --John (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

John, please don't forget to finish your review. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're a hard taskmaster Lecen. I apologise for the time slipping away; I would have done it had bloody Maggie not gone and died after Malleus and I wrote a GA on her. I am looking now and will complete before I go to bed, even though I have an interview tomorrow. There had better be a Barnstar in this for me when it is finished! --John (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A barnstar? That's all? lol! You don't have to do it today, of course. Just don't forget to finish it before the nomination is closed. Thanks a lot, --Lecen (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, will finish tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

John, you told me that there were were a couple of questions still pending. What are they? --Lecen (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Will finish tonight. --John (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I have struggled to get to this. I haven't forgotten and will get to i as soon as I can. --John (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Civility and infoboxes
Hi John, I noticed your comment on Ceoil's page and just wanted to mention in case you've not been aware that this has been an ongoing issue that as far as I'm concerned has elicited nasty behavior from other editors as well for more than a year. I for one would like to see the editors who use tactics other than swearing also receive a comment. For instance, I wasn't impressed that someone left a comment on my page asking me to do something about Ceoil's and Giano's spelling in a recent infobox conversation (imperfect spelling that apparently happened while I was logged out, but somehow I seem to bear the responsibility); although a minor incident, it's the reason I've decided to stop editing until this issue can either be resolved or at least stop being such a timesink. Anyway sorry to butt in but I thought I'd mention that I've been seeing a lot of baiting at best. I'm well aware that swearing merits a comment, but you're also well aware that there's behavior that's much more nuanced, stubborn, etc., that wears down editors and finally drives them away. Maybe now this is at AN/I someone will take notice but I fear, as usual, the bad language will trump all the rest. Anyway thanks for listening and best. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally understand what you are saying here. I would be very resistant to taking further action against Ceoil on this issue. --John (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation
Hello! This message is to inform you that WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

–p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Eve Hewson
Why did you removed the Personal Life Section from Eve Hewson's article and James Lafferty as her partner from her infobox?? Miss Bono   (zootalk)  19:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP. --John (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC
John, I'd be interested in a review from you on this given it's apparently had another copyedit since its last FAC, and has attracted a good deal of support this time round but not, I believe, from outside the gamer community. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will have a look tonight. --John (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have responded. -- JDC808  ♫  22:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I too. There is no need to ping me here unless a while goes by and I haven't responded. Be assured that I have FACs watchlisted. --John (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When you get a chance, can you have another look? Addressed a couple things. -- JDC808  ♫  19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to take a further look, probably this evening. --John (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. -- JDC808  ♫  19:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The nomination was archived. Would you care to post other issues you may have had on the article's Talk page so I can take care of them before the next nomination? -- JDC808  ♫  14:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that. Could you take Graham's advice on board? I'll be happy to look at a renom, but make sure you ask everybody or nobody next time. --John (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, will do. -- JDC808  ♫  17:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --John (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you that God of War (video game) is up for FAC again. Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive4 -- JDC808  ♫  20:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Harrison FAC
Thanks for your comments at Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive2. I've recently made a series of edits to the article that I feel have helped flesh-out "Harrison the man". If you can find the time, Evan and I would greatly appreciate it if you took another look. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will need time to properly read your changes. I will do it as soon as I can, probably in the next 24 hours. --John (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ping! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Denial (Sugababes song)
Hi, how are you? I was wondering if you were willing to comment on the FAC for Denial (Sugababes song) which is here, as the review has gone quite stale. If you are not willing, please ignore this message Till 06:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to have a look. I should have time later today. --John (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. Till 06:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, after all these days I finally realised what you meant by [a]. I have added it to the article. I hope you don't mind but I removed my ditzy comment on the FAC and wrote a new one out of embarrassment lol. Till 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll try to look again today. --John (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks very much, both of you. --John (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't help but wonder John where all those who are tripping over themselves to edit Maggie's article were when we were grafting away at it trying to restore its GA status. Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "The Little Red Hen" all over again. --John (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was building a fence! (And tomorrow I'm going to tear it down so I can straighten one of the crossbeams--that I put it in slanted kept me up all night.) Drmies (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The nonsense over at Maggie's article is driving me mad, so I've had to take it off my watchlist. Maybe when things quieten down after her funeral I'll take another tentative peek and see what damage has been done. One thing's for sure though, it's further away now from ever regaining its FA status than it was yesterday morning. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't blame you. All these people are well-intentioned. It's not nearly as bad as I feared it might be. --John (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If they're well intentioned, where were they when there was work needing to be done? Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the "Little Red Hen" effect again I'm afraid. If I get time I might write an essay, shortcut it to WP:LITTLEREDHEN. Would you help me? --John (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great one for essays I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I've only written one. This would be my first proper one. We'll see. --John (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried to resist the initial shock attack, but you've done really well in the subsequent trench warfare. I do bitterly resent though being accused of having any sort of agenda with regard to Margaret Thatcher, other than to present the facts in a balanced way. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's bitterly funny to me as well. If you knew me in real life, and especially if you had known me in the 1980s when we are talking about, the idea that I was a supporter of Thatcher would have you rolling on the floor. Apart from anything else, there were probably more vampires in Scotland than people openly supporting her. Even fewer now. I've often cited it as an example of how we can take our political hats off when editing. I demand that she be treated fairly as a biographical subject on our glorious crowd-sourced project. It isn't anything to do with whether I "like" her or not. I wish people could see that. If, hypothetically, one wanted to traduce her name, one wouldn't do it by insisting on deep coverage of some yahoos celebrating her death as an old lady, would one? --John (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually met my (now) wife on a student rally against the withdrawal of school milk: "Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher". The demo was an interesting insight into how the media manipulate events, and after we were turned away from Parliament because of some ancient law or other we had a great evening watching Emerson Lake and Palmer at Imperial College. A great day, and an even better night. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you must have a couple of years on me. I attended the anti-Poll Tax demonstration, not the big one in London that turned into a riot, but the relatively calm and civilised one in Glasgow the same day. --John (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe more than a couple. By the time of the poll tax riots we had a house in London, so I was very keen to see everyone pay their fair whack, not just me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of one I heard during my time in America: "A conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested." One changes over time. I think I have mainly just become much more cynical about politicians, of any stripe. Still, it's the only game in town. --John (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've always been cynical. I only went on the demo because I'd seen Ruth around and I thought it might be a good way to hook up with her. I really couldn't have cared less about the government's policy on free school milk, or on anything else for that matter. I was just there for the craic as the Irish say. Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that some clot has opened a GA reassessment on Maggie's article right in the middle of all this recent bollocks. Some people haven't got the sense they were born with. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. Isn't it on hold until the hoo-hah has diminished? Given the hatred and controversy she inspired, I am not all that surprised. It is entirely natural (though unfortunate and anti-encyclopedic) that those who hated her in life would try to do her down on Wikipedia after her death. --John (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooh, yes we must respect the deceased at all costs. Congratulations with achieving new heights of selfconratulatoriness and holier+than thou attitudes in this thread. Im sorry to have to bring in reality to rain on your parade.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you talking to me? Or did you accidentally post in the wrong place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John (talk • contribs)
 * I think Maunus is talking to himself and his imaginary friends. You can't actually put a GA reassessment on hold, so really it ought to be withdrawn by the nominator. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the current state of the article John? I'd be voting to have its GA listing removed myself in that condition. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Like you, I've been deliberately avoiding it. It's almost time to rebuild. I will be happy to help you. --John (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

William Karel's film about Margaret Thatcher
What is so bullshit (as you like o put it) about the film? Really don't understand what the problem is, sure could have gotten a better source, but nonetheless, a docementary film that should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bulgaria was never part of the Soviet Union, the past tense of "burst" is not "bursted", and on a Good Article we prefer English language sources. Please don't keep adding it. Instead, seek consensus in talk. --John (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your name
I'm curious. . . I see from your User Page that you've been editing since 2005, when the site was about four years old. Was the name "John" actually still available at that time, or have you assumed an abandoned name? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask? --John (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, it seems like it would have been one of the names grabbed up very early by the first editors of Wikipedia, and since the site was three or four years old when you joined, it just seemed incredibly fortunate that it was available. Didn't mean to pry, I just thought it was kind of neat. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I used to edit under a different name, and then I used the usurpation process to take over this one which had been registered but not really used. What about you, did you have any other names or accounts before this one? --John (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Links in quote
Hi John, I noticed your revert of a couple of wikilinks I provided for the Margaret Thatcher article. I thought the 'butter for guns' wikilink was quite helpful, is it policy not to have links within quotes as I've not heard anything to that effect? Cheers Hillbillyholiday talk 14:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's at WP:LINKSTYLE. --John (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yet another technical page that had escaped my noticed. The guideline is typically vague on the matter, but I'm not too bothered either way if the wikilinks are included to be honest. Incidentally, the 'butter for guns' stuff has a rather interesting history and has even been the subject of a famously sarky artwork.. All the best - Hillbillyholiday talk 14:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * seems far from vague. We do have WP:IAR to fall back on if you feel strongly about it or if other editors disagree. --John (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I overstated it a tad by calling it 'typically vague', but this guideline could be taken to mean that in an article (like Thatcher's) where there simply isn't room to expand on the subject matter elsewhere, it would be ok to put the wikilink within the quote. It can be useful and there doesn't seem to be any harm done (except aesthetically maybe). Perhaps I will raise the matter, I'm still something of a greenhorn round here and no doubt will go about it in my usual over-eager hamfisted manner. I doubt it is a major concern of yours, but may I ask if you personally think wikilinking within quotes is objectionable? Thanks again for the pointers btw. Hillbillyholiday talk 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest I am torn on this instance. The usual problem we have is that articles get overlinked; I frequently find 10 or more repetitions of the same link in articles I am copyediting. These are also typically zero-value links like English, United States and United Kingdom. Beginners often link every instance of everyday terms like these. The effect then is to distract from and thus dilute the value of the important links. In the case we are talking about though, I can see value in providing the link. Perhaps we could provide it in a footnote, thus allowing the interested to click through and find the origin of the phrase, without the uninterested being distracted by something that is highly peripheral to the story of Britain's first female PM. Let me think about it some more. In closing, please do ping me here if here is anything I can do for you; Wikipedia can be quite a steep learning curve and I have been here a while. --John (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Steep indeed, i didn't have a computer until last year! I really appreciate you taking time out to debate the finer points with me - funnily enough I wouldn't have even got involved with the Maggie article had this not been one of my first contributions to wikipedia in the heady days of, ooh.. six weeks ago. It may well appear like I'm bringing scraps to the table with that little edit, but I was (and still am) a little frightened of even searching for some of the Saudi/BAE 'connections' in depth. Hillbillyholiday talk 20:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a nice suggestion. I suggest waiting until the immediate hoo-hah over her death settles a bit and maybe we can pursue it. I apologise for missing your suggestion first time round. --John (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Decorative images
I'm curious: Why is it only with me you'll revert war over the long-standing images you removed without consensus? You aren't imposing your will consistently and things are currently a mess. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't need consensus to remove them, you need consensus to replace them. They breach the guideline and it's become clear they don't do anything except decorate. --John (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem confused. Firstly, you do need to find a new consensus should your attempt to change what has consensus be challenged by a revert; guidelines don't empower you to do otherwise. Secondly, nobody's proposing to replace the images. And, thirdly, you didn't at all address what I said above: You have continually reverted me when I reverted your unjustified removal of those images, but have not reverted others when they did the exact same thing as I; now some articles have the images and some don't. You're definitely coming across as a little tyrant, but the aforementioned makes it almost look as though this has become something personal for you, rather than about improving Wikipedia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology
Hi John, I owe you an unreserved apology for a comment I made about your review here. I retract it and hope you will forgive me. I can't fathom what caused my stupidity, unless it's old age. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've seen a lot worse. Don't worry about it. --John (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Feature Article
John, alcohol laws of New Jersey was made a feature article. Thank you for your help. We are petitioning to have it placed on the main page for a day - Today's featured article/requests. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am really pleased for you. Well done. --John (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the ARBCC notice to RobinLarson. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, only doing my job. Let me know if I can do anything else. --John (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've obviously been a bad influence
. See you at ANI. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, quite possibly. I dare not say more right now than I'm walking away for a few. --John (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I hit a wall, or was in danger of doing so, at the utter twattishness of people arguing abut what Marr meant when he said Thatcher increased personal wealth by 80%, without having any sources of their own, just an attitude. We've also got someone cutting material from the lead as unreferenced which is referenced in the body. Tell me honestly, Malleus, have you ever seen me behave in such a brain-dead and cuntish way on someone else's hard-written article? --John (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a reason I edit dead guys and horses... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * John and I worked on this at least in part because we anticipated that this kind of thing would happen when Thatcher died. God knows how much worse it would have been if we hadn't. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly? No, I haven't. We haven't always agreed about some minor points of style, but we've always been able to reach a compromise without resorting to pistols at dawn. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reality check. --John (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you've also been accused of not being willing or able to collaborate, something I get accused of all the time. Which always makes me laugh, because I've probably helped more editors get their articles up to snuff than any other editor in the history of Wikipedia. How could I have done that if was unable or unwilling to collaborate? Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What fucker said that? I thought our work on the MT article was an ideal of collaboration, but I suppose we're running into the Randy from Boise effect here. It turns out everyone is an expert on Thatcher now. Oh well. --John (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for interjecting, but as a novice here (and a right curious dickens) i've briefly scanned over both of yr inputs for a few days as you seem to know what's what around here (without being admin which i have my opinions about ), and i gotta say you both have my utmost respect. John's already been very patient with me on this page. And Malleus, sorry for not introducing myself properly earlier, it's not that i'm remotely bothered by swearing - see this article that I wrote 99.9% of which was on the main page today!) it was the personal nature of it all, but i'm beginning to empathize a bit. Maybe in a few years I'll be cursing all and sundry here! Hillbillyholiday talk 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * John is an admin, it's me who isn't. And I don't curse everyone here, only those who deserve it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * wahooooops! no offense John. Malleus i obviously don't think that you curse all and sundry. i had my reservations at first is all - but anyway, more to the point, your 'style' is not my business until directed at me, and even then you can say what u like. That was why i was apologizing. All the best to the both of you. Hillbillyholiday talk 18:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Maybe you read some of that guff about me hating all admins, and naturally thought that John couldn't possibly be an admin as he and I obviously get on. The fact is though that there are probably at least as many admins I'm on friendly terms with as there are who hate my guts. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All the best to you too Hillbillyholiday. No hard feelings, and try in my absence to restrain the worst garbage over there. --John (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Had a peak at the legacy bit we were discussing, really you don't want to know John, it appears ok-ish (but more vague) at first word-wise, then u see there are not one extra reference for a paragraph. The editors feel they have consensus. it isn't so important us to deal with it right now, there are plenty of others out there who might query the 'facts' so let them have a crack and come back when it looks so terrible you can prove the guys editing it are useless, and if they do do a good job then that's great. I'm genuinely ducking out for a day or so this time - Real life awaits i'm afraid. Hillbillyholiday talk 19:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While I have you both here (sorta kinda) - which should go to FAC first - Middle Ages or Norman conquest of England? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Norman Conquest of England, no question. The scope of Middle Ages makes it inevitable that you'll get bogged down with people complaining about what is or isn't included. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Norman Conquest per Malleus, but either really. They are both very good. --John (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NC needs a copyedit. John's done one on MA already ... but both of you could usefully ce NC and still not catch all my yankeeisms. I WILL take MA to FAC. (And starting on the 15th, I'll be deep into Crusades for the Core Contest...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Typical bloody woman. You ask for advice and then go and do what you were going to do anyway. Reminds me of my wife's "Would you like to stop for a coffee?" as we're driving down the motorway. I've learned not to say "No, I'm fine", as what always follows is "Well, I want to stop for a coffee!" Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I am going to take a coffee break from that article. There are some cats shitting in my garden, and I don't know how to stop that either. At a certain point it becomes better to walk away and do something else for a while. Thatcher will be dead a long time. We can get it back to GA later, once these people have lost interest and moved on to another thing that interests them. --John (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I used to keep a loaded water pistol by the kitchen window when we had that problem. Sorted it a treat. "They don't like it up 'em, they don't like it up 'em". Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We're on the first floor unfortunately; I'd have to camp out to do that effectively and it's too cold. I thought of trying to get some lion's dung as apparently that works really well. Hard to get hold of though. Did occur to me to use a Claymore mine as well but that would be overkill. --John (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I didn't ask "which should I take to FAC"... I asked "Which should I take to FAC first..." .. you both are experienced males, you should know how to parse woman-speak by now! And I don't know how you two stood Thatcher - I'd have blown my stack by now... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did blow my stack, which is why I've left it to John until after the funeral. I took the initial shock attack, and now John's engaging in the follow-up trench warfare. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm recuperating away from the front line for a wee while away from the poison gas. --John (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cat shit? A Super Soaker with lemon juice would've been my first suggestion, but if unfeasible a small heap of sand in the corner of the garden is more preferable to a cat. When my little pussy was in heat, i had so many manky-toms breaking in, i had to (well, i didn't have to) set the cat-flap to trap them inside (my bathroom), and then i'd give em a quick dunk in the bath and lob 'em out the window.. - Tippi Hedren

TY
I noticed both in my watchlist and on Malleus' talk that you have been diligent in keeping the quality of the Margaret Thatcher article at the highest possible levels. TY for that. — Ched : ?  18:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. I've had to walk away for a while as I was getting so incensed by the ignorance and bad faith being exhibited there. I suppose I will go back in a few days and see what kind of a mess the campaigners there have made. The good version will still be there in the history. Meantime, if you are interested you could protect the article to prevent more damage; it's a very prominent article at the moment and it's a shame its quality is being eroded. --John (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (2)
Aw thanks, that's really nice of you! And I am delighted we finally got it through. You did most of the work and deserve most of the credit. --John (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, its really not about the credit for me. What I enjoy is the teamwork and seeing an article at its best. I sincerely thank you for being so encouraging. As I mentioned to Malleus, Wikipedia can at times be a cold and thankless place IME, so your encouragement and advice during the FAC (and elsewhere) was invaluable. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way. I really enjoyed working with you on it. It was quite a difficult one to get right, wasn't it? I am delighted with how it's turned out. --John (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it sure was a tough one, but in a way that just made promotion all the more sweeter! I also enjoyed working with you John and I hope we can do more collaborating in the future. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Beanfields
How's it going? The 80% discussion's started up again. As important as the wealth info is to people, i don't think i can bear going over it again. Staying with Thatch though, do you know much about the Battle of the Beanfield? For the cops who had just been decking hard-working miners, the chance to deck "crusty jugglers" at the Beanfields was an absolute dream.. I know some people who were there, who had their newborn (a kid named 'lay-by') showered with glass as the police went nuts and smashed the fuck out of his home. Luckily they didn't burn it down like some others had done to them. Shocking clips on youtube - in an ideal world this would be as well-known as the miner stuff, but even now people have little sympathy for the new-age traveller community. Hillbillyholiday talk 10:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TPS. Yes, a truly disgusting episode in modern domestic British history. And one which, at the time, seemed to typify the attitude of the Thatcher government to what was then starting to become (what is now called) "the underclass". Apologies for this soap-boxing, but I think Hillbilly is right. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All you need is good sources. Pretty sure the Grauniad covered it at the time. Ian Dury wrote a great song about it. I shall return to the discussion when I feel ready, but like Malleus I have little tolerance for know-it-alls and POV-pushers trying to turn a well-written Good Article into a scandal sheet. Meantime find some sources. YouTube won't even slightly cut it; serious newspapers or academic books. I am sure they are out there. Remember the article is about Thatcher, not her government or general events of the era. Are they still arguing over what "personal wealth" means? --John (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * r.e. 80% > Sort of!
 * r.e Beanfields. Glad it's not forgotten at least. I will definitely get round to finding pertinent sources for the Beanfields when I get more time. Hillbillyholiday talk 10:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Itinerant Child" (although not a single, as was intended). Yours, Mr Love Pants (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the one! He was a great loss; I was much sadder about his death than Thatcher's, not that my feelings amount to a hill of beans in the great scheme of things. --John (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with you about 101% there, John. Ian's personal Thatcherite epitaph maybe: "they turned my ramshackle home into a burning wreck, my one-eyed dog got a broken neck". Yours, Normo Tebbs (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO the trouble with linking events to Thatcher and others like her, is the extreme unlikelyhood of finding a direct quote or document issuing 'criminal' orders straight from the horses mouth. This problem is rarely addressed in the study of History, only recently gaining notice. The term "Deep politics" covers this, and other issues in the (bean)field. Hillbillyholiday talk 10:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All we need are good sources that make the link. Try and find them. --John (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(On June 5th, 1986) "..Margaret Thatcher told the nation that her government was "only too delighted to do anything we can to make life difficult for such things as hippy convoys." gotcha! A few months the Public Order Act 1986 "made trespass a criminal offence and stated: "Two people proceeding in a given direction can constitute a procession and can be arrested as a threat to civil order".>BBC news website "This was the final nail in the coffin of the British free festival movement - effectively stopping the "new-age travellers" and festival-goers in their tracks.">BBC news website Without getting into synthesis issues yet, i think i can justify the inclusion of some of this into the article. maybe later, though, when it all calms down. Hillbillyholiday talk 11:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "they turned my ramshackle home into a burning wreck, my one-eyed dog got a broken neck" Love this Martin! Hillbillyholiday talk 11:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree there could be something there worth mentioning when the vultures are finished. --John (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did someone mention know-it-all superstars?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edinburgh/GA3
John, it's been four weeks since you started this review, and said you'd be back to do it in detail, but you haven't yet returned. If you are still interested in pursuing it, can you get started soon? If not, we can put it back in the pool for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I completed this. Thanks for the reminder. --John (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's almost completed. The review is still open until you've placed the FailedGA template on the article's talk page. If you've never done this before, the instructions are on the WP:GAN page under the Instructions tab, and a fair ways down the page. (It explains about template parameters and the like.) Many thanks for getting back to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You've rumbled me, this is my first time. Thanks for keeping me right. --John (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've failed hundreds of GAs, so if you ever need any help in the future you know where to call. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought a bot would take care of the trivial matters once I was finished the hard bit of reading and critiquing the article. I should not have reviewed it, having extensively edited the article (though not I think substantively). I will do better next time. Thanks to both of you for the support. --John (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And it's a good moment of humility for me; even having been here for a good few years and thinking I knew my way around, here's an area I've never been to. Thanks again, both of you. --John (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But you're an administrator, you're omnipotent. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah, if only! --John (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hartebeest
Hi John! Long since you interacted at the FAC. Any more comments you would like to make or would you support/oppose? I hope all your comments have been answered, so please decide on this soon. Thanks, Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 01:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've supported. --John (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --John (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So we've both been reported for 3RR now, what a surprise. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although mine relates to Andrew Marr; what do you think of using the Daily Mail to source controversial material about a living person?! --John (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not much. I wouldn't use it to wipe my arse. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well exactly. As a tabloid, it's been kicked to touch by numerous WP:BLPN and WP:RSN discussions. I blocked someone earlier today for repeatedly adding some negative material sourced only to the Mail, something that as you know I very seldom do. Strangely enough, I just removed another bunch of bullshit sourced to the same rag from Mark Thatcher. As regards our once-great GA, I haven't swung by in a few days. Last I saw there were people there arguing (I kid you not) about what exactly "personal wealth" meant. I dread to think what they are doing to it in our absence. --John (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was not "negative material", it was the subject's own reflections on his actions, freely given. It was, as you are fully aware, not originally added by me, and had been on the article in question for nearly two years. It was sourced to the Mail because that was the newspaper that conducted the interview. Kevin McE (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at Maggie for some time either, and I don't intend to again until her funeral is done and dusted and things have got back to normal. We can assess the damage then. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The good version is still there in the history. --John (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So please tell me...
Rather than suggesting to other people that I do not understand what I did wrong, how about you answer the specific points that I raised both at my talk page and the Andrew Marr talk page? Kevin McE (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If I see you raising anything I haven't already answered, I will. --John (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way that you did not see is if you did not look:
 * There is no rule that we cannot use information read in a tabloid newspaper: don't confuse the publication with the genre.
 * The reader is not well served by being deprived of Marr's considered response to the situation.
 * his own quote cannot be defamatory towards him.
 * the Daily Mail is a middle-market newspaper; it is tabloid in format, but not noted for fanciful or sensationalist style
 * As an involved party in dispute over the matter of interpretation of wp:blpsources, he should not have taken the step of banning
 * John's 'offer' to lift the block if I am " willing to undertake not to repeat the behaviour" would require me to undertake never to link to an interview with the subject of a biographical article, which is plainly an unreasonable expectation
 * John would need to prove that the quotation in question is "challenged or likely to be challenged", that an interview freely given in a middle-market paper meets the definition of tabloid journalism, that the Daily Mail in not a "reliable, published source", and that Marr's own words constitute "contentious material about [a] living person."
 * Today's appearance has been featured in news bulletins. It is intensely relevant to the subject of the article, so we should tell the reader more than the simple fact of the appearance, stripped of context, update and declaration of future plans
 * Of course you can comment. You might choose not to, but don't claim to be a slave to it, nor to be incapable of recognising that it is open to a variety of interpretations.
 * I await your response. Kevin McE (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read all of that, hence my concern that you still don't understand what you did wrong. I am sorry if you are still annoyed at what happened; I would much prefer if I hadn't had to block you too. The Daily Mail is a tabloid and we cannot use it to source material on a BLP; numerous noticeboard discussions have confirmed this. In cases of BLP we always err on the side of not reporting dubious material. The fact that the material is contentious is shown by the very fact that I am challenging it; that's what "contentious" means! I remain concerned that you have not learned from what happened and that you could be at risk of being blocked again. Let me know if you need more help or guidance. --John (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well in that case your assertion that you had answered all of it is wrong.
 * You seem to be incapable of understanding consensus in this case, which is clearly that this was was not tabloid journalism. It was a direct quote of the subject of the article.  You were not challenging the material, you seem to be waging some strange campaign against a paper that (while I would never want to buy a copy) is not the style of tabloid envisaged in that policy.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How reliable is the Mail? It should be pretty good considering that with their dealings with just one illegally run information-gathering agency: "The Daily Mail is top of the table - with 58 of its journalists using the agency and making 952 separate transactions." [www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/36439 ] (This data only covers a few years pre-2002 I think, and I seem to remember hearing that many of the requests being made for info to be used in the Weekender supplement!)  I'm sure that no such business goes on now of course..  But then, I don't like even quoting the BBC in my articles too much as I've found them to be incorrect in the past. Hillbillyholiday talk 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this is hatted, but a brief note to Kevin as there seems to be a misunderstanding as regards Wikipedia's using the Mail as a source; I was there when that policy was written, and the Daily Mail—specifically and by name—is exactly the tabloid we had in mind when deciding that tabloid sources were unsuitable as a source for BLPs. Except in very exceptional circumstances (as a source for an article about the paper itself, for instance), the Mail is never reliable as a source—it has far too much of a history of fabricating stories and distorting sources. If a story is notable and genuine, a legitimate newspaper will pick it up. If you put any store by such things, the WMF position is that [the Mail] is "trashy and unreliable and should treated with grave caution in all cases - and generally discouraged as a source. Political or editorial stance is irrelevant, too.  It's about the quality - which is too low for encyclopedic work". –  iridescent  18:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jimbo has spoken. Thank you Iridescent. As I have said several times, this has also been discussed many times at the boards and the consensus always is, as Malleus has said, we wouldn't wipe our metaphorical arses with it. I am going to rehat, and my recommendation stands; if you don't know a decent source from a tabloid shitrag, the place to discuss it is thataway. If an admin tells you not to add something per BLP concerns, don't add it or you may be blocked. Now, back to something useful? --John (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Improving Iain Banks
You have been one of the most active contributors to Iain Banks. As you may know, he is going to pass away in the near future :( Perhaps you will be interested in the initiative to improve his article as a parting gift from us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. How do you propose to take it forwards? --John (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is needed is for somebody to take some time, read through existing sources / find new, and expand the article; in particular we need a section about his works (critical reception and such). Not that much work needed, actually... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. --John (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh. What an assholish move (as was this). Luckily I slept through it and completely missed it. The only effect this will have is that I will give even less credence to your arguments, Adam. --John (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Does WP:NPA apply here? Does WP:BLP?. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Gosh. We're really improving the encyclopedia tonight, aren't we? Incidentally, my user name is not a pseudonym, but don't let accuracy get in the way of your witch-hunt. Have fun with it. --John (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your sarcasm is not helpful. Could you please discuss this with respect towards those who disagree with you instead of making snarky comments?
 * I believe that I am improving the encyclopedia. I noticed the Thatcher page after it was referenced at ANI, and when I saw the comment that you deleted I came to the conclusion that the deletion was out-of-policy, because the comment was merely uncivil, not a personal attack. If I am correct, out-of-policy deletions of talk page discussions are detrimental to the encyclopedia. In my considered opinion, the deleted comment also made a valid point that added to the discussion; coverage in other countries is often less biased when it comes to political leaders. For example, to me BBC seems far more neutral regarding Bush and Obama than US sources such as Fox or MSNBC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that you didn't just say that here. It's a reasonable point. Instead you restored an article talk post that started "Good old John" and accused me of "Houdini-esque argumentation", which I had removed under the provision of WP:TPOC, specifically bullet point 4. (In addition, the offending post completely misrepresented my argument there.) You then, without communication with me, raised the matter at AN/I, a time sink and drama magnet. If we're talking about respect, I don't think you've treated me with respect, and I don't think I owe you any. I don't intend to comment at AN/I. I stand by my comment about Adam's attempt to win a content dispute at AN/I being "assholish", and I do reserve the right to remove trolling from my own talk page. Good evening to you. --John (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that "Asshole" and "Troll" are not personal attacks but "Houdini-esque argumentation" is? I can well understand why it is that you don't want to defend that position at ANI. First rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. When a post completely misrepresents your argument, the correct response is to respond, not to delete.


 * As to whether "John" is a Pseudonym, I choose to use my real name as my Wikipedia username. With a small effort you can find my home address and telephone number. The same cannot be said about "John", which could refer to any number of people. Therefor, unless you have self-outed somewhere that I am not aware of, I must conclude that comments about "John" cannot be violations of WP:BLP. The distinction is important; I take allegations of BLP violations very seriously. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh. No, I am not saying that. Tell you what, why don't you refocus your creative energy into a more productive area? I have no interest at present in discussing this with you here. For future reference, talk to a user first, then report them to AN/I, rather than this way around. You might get better results that way. --John (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Adam is indeed a source, a source of fucking irritation. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL, I am sure he means well. I wish I could say the article looks better as a result of all the short-term attention it has had. --John (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We'll either have to go back and look at it again one day or write it off as a bad job. I'm havering around 50/50 at the moment. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Either way. I'm afraid I don't have that much time or energy to devote to it at the moment. --John (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's motivation I'm lacking. I'm not naturally a quitter, but there are so many other things I'd rather be doing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * One great thing about Wikipedia is, you can walk away and come back. And, with 3.4 million views in a month, it could have been worse. --John (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jeez, that's an awful lot of hits! Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I know. If we got a penny a hit for writing it, we would both be raising a glass tonight I imagine! Oh well... --John (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's Friday night, so I'll be raising a glass anyway. If you spot me getting into any fights this evening please feel free to block me for my own good, until I sober up tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am having a beer as well as it happens, Fursty Ferret, hoppy and delicious. Cheers! --John (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I like Fursty Ferret. As you may know, I've kept ferrets for many years now, and it's a popular prize at ferret shows. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC
John, I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what you requested on the FAC. As far as I know there is no requirement that says that a German editor should give his "okay" if an American or British editor tries to nominate World War II, for example. And I couldn't understand why the opinion of an Uruguayan was needed on the three paragraphs you presented: I hope you don't see me as confrontational. I really didn't understand well what you meant and I thought I could perhaps explain it. Let me know if there is anything else not clear. --Lecen (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The Christie Question occurred from 1863 until 1865. Brazil and Britain almost entered in a war because the British representative in Brazil made a series of mistakes. Brazil could not allow a war on its southern border between its own subjects and foreign partisans without looking weak next to Britain. This has nothing to do with Uruguay.
 * 2) Brazil wanted a friendly government in Uruguay. It invaded that country, toppled a democratically elected government and replaced it with a friendly rebel. How could this be regarded in any possible way to Brazil as a positive description of what happened? I could understand the opinion of an Uruguayan if I had hidden this from the article and claimed that Brazil only entered the war because its subjects complained that they were being attacked. I even added the following quotation: "[The] fact that Uruguayan citizens had as just valid claims against Brazil as Brazilians had against Uruguay was ignored" and "[the] Uruguayan president had been unwilling to resolve these, particularly because the Brazilians whose grievances were at issue were allies of Venancio Flores, a client of the Argentines, and a man who was seeking his overthrow."
 * 3) I could have written the rapes as facts, because that's how those books presented them. I found it odd and presented another book that says that it didn't happen. In fact, I was quite clear about it but you removed it ("Thus, there is no verification that rapes occurred"). What an Uruguayan could do here? Say that Uruguayans indeed raped Brazilian women?
 * Yes, it's a very tricky question to ask without my sounding offensive. I am sorry if I have offended you. I will try to explain better at FAC. --John (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you didn't. To write the article I used the following books (all in English):
 * (Raine 1956) Paraguay
 * (Whigham 2002) The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct
 * (Kraay; Whigham 2004) I Die With My Country: Perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864-1870
 * (Munro 1960) The Latin American Republics: A History
 * (Williams 1937) Dom Pedro the magnanimous, second emperor of Brazil
 * All online. The primary source in Portuguese which I used to write this article is the following:
 * (Bormann 1907) A Campanha do Uruguay

You can check all the main sources on-line. The others were used merely to complement these. --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I promise to have a look but I am not sure I will manage tonight. --John (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you and I are back on good terms or not Lecen, so I'll ask if you'd mind if I took a look at your article as well? Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not having replied sooner, Malleus. I don't keep talk pages on my watchlist. If there is someone around who is really good at improving articles, that person is you. I would be very glad if you could take a look on the FAC. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You could hardly have replied sooner Lecen, only 16 minutes after I posted. We've had our run ins, but I think you're doing a great job with the history of Brazil and I'd like to help. Maybe one day you'll help me with the history of Manchester? :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

John Le Mesurier
Hi, fellow John. I just noticed your run-in with the folks who developed a John Le Mesurier page for a featured article. They put you down real fast, at the top of the talk page I see Talk:John Le Mesurier. I encountered them and their personas 3 weeks later with even worse results. If you hadn't already, you might like to catch up with their spoofing talk and circular reasoning. Fortunately, there are those who find humour in the situation. I told them I think they exist in violation of WP:MEAT. Do you live North of Hadrian's Wall? Safer up there, I think. Are you an admin? JohnClarknew (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you had a rough time there. WP:OWN is an inherent problem on Featured Articles. Our peer review process is imperfect, which leads to some problematic articles being promoted. It then becomes a problem because their faults are preserved and justified by their status. I am not sure how best to address this; one way is to become involved in the peer review process oneself and try to prevent substandard articles from being promoted. This is a lot of work. Often it is easier to just walk away; Wikipedia is a big place, I believe we currently have over a squillion articles. It isn't worth losing sleep over one. --John (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Walk away is not in my nature. Bad things consolidate, and the victors chortle and encourage others, and any complaints become stuck in committee proceedings. I think that WP should be completely transparent, and I've tackled that other subject here User talk:Jimbo Wales. WP shouldn't be afraid of being as open as it claims it is; encourage all to write articles, including "notables", whoever they are, on the basis that any self promotion or lies will ultimately be self-correcting, because WP is good at leaving historical tracks, revealing manipulation, and therefore encouraging truth. And becoming a more interesting resource for the public. We don't exist like fish in a glass bowl, there's an audience out there. JohnClarknew (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation
Hello! This message is to inform you that WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

 Miss Bono   (zootalk)  17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to join this roll call   Miss Bono   (zootalk)  17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

New statesman
Dunno if you've seen it John but yr quoted in the New Statesman

Particularly harsh was the removal of Bulgarian Premier Marin Raykov's statement, with the words "bullshit, poorly sourced, badly written"

Good work! - Hillbillyholiday talk 00:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is interesting. --John (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Bad link
Evening, I used to edit year ago, but cannot remember my logins. Have felt compelled to make a few changed while browsing. Come across an isue so am seeking clarification from an admin. I sorted out the external links on [Surname map|this page]. I noticed one was a commercial site (that last one I wrote a description for). I can't see any sample data on it even. Further, the information it sells if freely available on other sites in the links. I looked up |this and see point 6 says sites that require payment should not be on here. So should this be deleted? --5.64.191.207 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have removed all of them. We are not here to provide external links collections, though there are sites that do this. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For future reference, what exactly was wrong with those links? Some were a bit flakey, but some sites (IMO) provided good information and a couple were academic projects. Reading ELNO more in conjunction with your message, is it more that Wikipedia doesn't want to have large lists than the quality of all/some of those sites? If so would a link to a reputable directory such as this be acceptable? (N.B. that site is one of the largest genealogy sites & has its on Wiki page) --5.64.191.207 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, a directory could be a better target than all those links. The article was being overwhelmed by its links. --John (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Any of the links which were reliable sources could better be used to support encyclopedic material in the article, rather than just being used as links. Links on their own add very little. --John (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Economic recovery brought a resurgence of support.....
Hi John. Margaret Thatcher: The specific claim that 'economic recovery brought a resurgence of support' is not referenced anywhere in the body of the article. All that is suggested in the article is that there were indications that economic recovery may have started - but no claims linking those signs to 'a resurgence of support'. To suggest that since there were signs of economic recovery = that explains the 'resurgence of support' is an opinion you may hold but needs to be supported by sources. However the vast bulk of sources clearly link the resurgence of support to the Falklands War, and should you wish to check the trend of opinion polls at the time, it will be obvious to you why that is the mainstream interpretation. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that's petty. I've responded in article talk. --John (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher's Death
Hi John. Margaret Thatcher: Why delete my reference to the Queen attending a former prime minister's funeral for only the second time in her reign? Whether you disagreed with her or not, she was the first female Prime Minister and the Queen elevated the status of the occasion by attending with her husband. The Queen rarely attends any funeral outside her familyUser:ksk2875 (talk)
 * I don't believe this merits inclusion in her biography. There's another article for details about her death and funeral. This material would probably be better there. --John (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I politely disagree with you. The Queen's attendance illustrates her importance and should be included in her biography.  If the Queen regularly attended funerals, I would agree with you.  However, she does not.  Does Wikipedia give you authority on where the placement of material 'probably' should be?User:ksk2875 (talk)
 * I suggest raising this at Talk:Margaret Thatcher. --John (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed section on genre for Clockwork Orange (film)
Hi John, many thanks for removing this. I removed it before (twice) but it got reverted. Its about time someone other than myself spotted the problem with this. Let me know if you want to discuss this more, otherwise I'm happy with your decision. Thanks again. Jodon |  Talk  21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's being discussed at article talk. I don't have a problem in principle with having such a section, but what was there was awful and badly sourced. --John (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: George Harrison
This is a note to let the main editors of George Harrison know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

George Harrison (1943–2001) was an English musician, singer, and songwriter who achieved international fame as the lead guitarist of the Beatles. By 1965 Harrison had begun to lead the other Beatles into folk rock through his interest in the Byrds and Bob Dylan, and towards Indian classical music through his use of the sitar on "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)". He developed an interest in the Hare Krishna movement and became an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism, introducing them to the other Beatles and their Western audience. Following the band's break-up in 1970, Harrison released several best-selling singles and albums as a solo performer, and in 1988 co-founded the platinum-selling supergroup the Traveling Wilburys. A prolific recording artist, he was featured as a guest guitarist on tracks by Badfinger, Ronnie Wood and Billy Preston, and collaborated on songs and music with Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton and Tom Petty, among others. He also organized the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh with Ravi Shankar, a precursor to later benefit concerts such as Live Aid. Harrison was also a music and film producer, founding Dark Horse Records in 1974 and co-founding HandMade Films in 1978. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor Edits Guidance
John: Just wanted to say thanks for your guidance on minor edits. I appreciate it. Will take heed on my future edits on articles. BTW, read your personal philosophy on the argument about the reliability of Wikipedia as a source. For me, I think it's a very hard one to win given that there are some Wikipedia articles that are so poorly written and thee are some that are very well-written. It's all across the board without much in between. I know many professors refuse to allow their students to use Wikipedia as a source since anyone can edit it and therefore, anyone can edit out pertinent information or add erroneous information. For me, I edit Wikipedia articles as a hobby and only when I have the time to do it. I try to help when I have time. Diving in deep to author an article takes a lot of time which I don't often have. So often my edits are really minor, i.e. correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation. What does attract me is the collaboration to contribute human knowledge about a person or any subject. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Wikipedia should never be used as a source, but then neither should any tertiary source like Britannica. Wikipedia articles are variable in quality for sure, but that's why we have the various peer review processes, for all their imperfections. Wikipedia articles are mainly helpful in academia as rough overviews and as sources of sources. Let me know if I can ever be any help to you in the future. --John (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping
For God of War FAC. -- JDC808  ♫  17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --John (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher's Death
With all due respect I did exactly as you asked in raising the issue at Talk:Margaret Thatcher. You never answered my answer question until after I posted additional material and then issued a warring notice? How fair is that?--User:ksk2875 (talk)
 * The idea of a talk page is that you seek support there for stuff you want to add. In the absence of such support you do not add the material. --John (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood but you should retract your warring notice. I'm not the one deleting material or trying to undo contributions--User:ksk2875 (talk)
 * I'm happy to retract it if you are happy not to repeatedly add material against consensus. I can see you have previously been blocked for edit warring so you should know better. --John (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You win. Its obvious you are much more experienced and competent wikipedia user and I have no intention of starting an edit war with you.  Clearly you must recognize that the log shows you didn't answer my questions at Talk:Margaret Thatcher until after you deleted my contributions and then issued a warring edict.  Was there a consensus for you to delete my contributions?  I understand that the wikipedia rules may not require a consensus to delete material that but I would hope to you respect my opinion that it is self-righteous.--User:ksk2875 (talk)
 * I truly appreciate your insertion of a modified version of the contribution. Thank you.--User:ksk2875 (talk)

Cybernats and Unitrolls
Hi John, I am considering creating a page for the Rev. Stuart Campbell. This Scottish journalist was a hero of mine when I was eleven and used to read Amiga Power - a unique and uncompromising computer-game magazine from the early nineties. He was (and probably still is) regarded as the most famous game-reviewer around, known for his creative and often scathing prose. I would need to do some more research to establish the level of his fame in this field though. He has worked for many titles over the years, including the NME, the Grundiad and Total Football (a list). He later went on to work at the famous (to retro gamers)  Sensible Software, and he still designs and reviews games. I guess there haven’t been many computergame reviewers in Wikipedia yet, but the plot thickens..

Having only recently got online, I was slightly surprised to find that he is now a prominent figure in the Scottish Independence debate. Apparently his political blog "Wings Over Scotland" recently overtook The Scotsman in readership figures (need proof yet). Researching his output (and the bitter debates) online, I’ve come across new terms like "cybernat" and "unitroll" which aren’t mentioned in WP. It shows how the newspapers are facing increasing competition from the blogosphere.

Pat Kane writes in The Scotsman:

"The well-known cybernat site Wings Over Scotland managed something extraordinary the other week. Through a crowd-funding platform, it raised over £30,000 to support his media monitoring and original reportage (from an independence perspective). Wings’ founder, the Rev Stuart Campbell, has the ambition to create a Daily Record for the Yes campaign. No matter what you think of that goal, it’s a tangible example of how it’s possible for light-cost digital operators, with a clear idea of their community, to successfully appeal to them for financial commitment." 2 April 2013

I think an entry for Rev Stuart Campbell would be ok in terms of notability, but he is a very controversial figure (for many reasons, e.g. this) and I haven’t created a Living Person bio yet. I request your advice in particular because I believe you are from Scotland (?) and you probably know the political scene better, and as a mop-holder you could help me in what might be a tricky article (if done in depth). If you, or any TPSs out there think I shouldn’t bother, or have any advice, then please let me know before I get too into creating this article, as I have others in the pipeline. Cheers. Hillbillyholiday talk 03:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Let me have a think about that. --John (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks John, my main concern would be edit-warring. "RevStu" has many fans and quite a few enemies. Another new (and rather contentious) Living Person bio I was thinking of doing was Paul Britton aka The Real-Life Cracker.  With all the cases he's been involved with (Fred West, Rachel Nickell, James Bulger, etc) and for being an early and famous Forensic psychologist, he really should have an entry.  The Heinz Baby Food Scare as related in The Jigsaw Man is particularly interesting and could warrant an article of its own.  Amazingly The Gndiiaaun once gave his name as "Paul Gritton" in a byline! Hillbillyholiday talk 05:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I completed the article for Rev. Stuart Campbell. I contacted the Reverend to let him know that he was the subject of an new WP entry, and while rather pleased, he did state that he had to request the deletion of a previous article (and that was before all the "debate") due to edit-warring.  As he is a much more prominent figure since the last the article was craeted, could I ask that you (or any other admins) to keep an eye out and quickly move to semi-protect if the need arises> Thanks.  Hillbillyholiday talk 17:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a nice article, well done. I think some of the sourcing is a bit weak but I am pretty sure it would survive an AfD. It'd be even better if you could find some more sources. Do you think you could? --John (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. I was concerned about the over-reliance on blogs for sources, some factual details were corrected, and the two quotes that I thought might be jokes were quickly removed by brand new user User talk:CaptainCorrecto(?!)  Although they were well known for their irreverent style, the AP staff writers (esp. Rev. Stu) prided themselves on accuracy and accurate reporting when it came to important facts.  I think I have some old issues lurking in the loft, but other than that I don't think there is much else.  As blogs overtake newspapers in the future, I think we'll have more problems like this.  Intriguing article though isn't it?  I loved finding out more about Paddy Roy Bates in particular. Hillbillyholiday talk 19:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done indeed. I might even look for more sources myself. I'll certainly keep a close eye on it and so may some of my watchers. --John (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio
Okay, if you don't think the article should cite the Daily Mail, that's one thing. But how in the world do you think it helps to remove the Daily Mail citations, while leaving in all the information that was cited to the Daily Mail? I believe I've now removed the information that came from the DM, but I had to make an effort to point out how nonsensical that was. The article has a quote that only appears in the Daily Mail, and cites the Daily Mail for it. You apparently believe the Daily Mail is unreliable, so you take out the citation, so the article just contains the unreliable information and doesn't even show the reader that the source was the Daily Mail. Really? Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am glad you understand WP:BLPSOURCES, and I appreciate your help in enforcing it. Well done. --John (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I apparently understand it better than you do, if you think it says that when you see potentially damaging material that's not cited to a reliable source, you should leave the potentially damaging material intact. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you understand it better than I do I salute you. Well done again. --John (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to try to explain it to you, if you still don't understand why your conduct was so irrational, counterproductive and self-defeating. But otherwise I'm not going to keep coming back here to be congratulated. I'm unwatching your Talk page; you can leave a note on mine if you want to request tutoring. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. --John (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI
This is your only warning. Your name was mentioned at WP:ANI. Most of your reverts are nonsense, such as restoring a link to a redirect. Most of the edits were good edits that you are reverting. Apteva (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No they weren't. See WP:NOTBROKEN. --John (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Scottish or British?
I note you are seeking to lecture me on wikipedia policy on UK nationalities. You claim to be 'Scottish' so you are certainly not an unbiased judge of Maxwell's nationality! A bit self-righteous, I would say. British as a description is a) correct and b) not at all partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.242.36 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to add the part of the wiki policy on UK nationalities which claims it is not ok to call everyone British is wholly flawed. Who thought this up? It is clearly ideal to describe by default all as British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.242.36 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. We work by consensus here and I am renowned for being capable of editing outside my nationality. I am equally grumpy to people of all nations. Who are you, dynamic IP? --John (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

2012–13 Rangers F.C. season
Just wanted to draw your attention to this article, John. It is getting close to an edit-war, I'm not sure of the ins-and-outs of this one, I just wikilinked User:CaptainCorrecto's contribution. I won't speculate any further on the identity of this newish user, except to say that it looks like he might be "correct" in this case, but doesn't seem to be the sort of person who backs down. Cheers. Hillbillyholiday talk 08:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --John (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555537256 your edit] to Madonna (entertainer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * Thanks, bot, that's a really useful functionality. I have fixed my mistake. --John (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556622876 your edit] to Wasp Star (Apple Venus Volume 2) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [{{fullurl:Wasp Star (Apple Venus Volume 2)|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" |- ! style="background-color: #FAA;" | List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page (Click show ⇨ ) {{!}}- {{!}} style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " {{!}} {{!}}}Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Studios, Wiltshire and Chipping Norton Recording Studios, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom {{red|&#93;&#93;}}

Question
Are you willing to reinstate the deleted threads at the Jimmy Savile article? Feel free to remove lines if you wish, but I think the referenced material is relevant even if somewhat controversial. S. Fight (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. --John (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis
Hi. Since you enlightened me at the FAC for Song of Innocence, I was wondering if you could tell me if I'm right regarding the opening statement in this article's section. I've been arguing with another editor that they are synthesizing things from two different sources. Dude's putting doubts in my mind, LOL. Dan56 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've agreed with you there. It's an extremely common fault. I wrote an essay on a related subject if you are interested. --John (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

USchick and copyright
Is anything actually going to be done about this issue? I've seen nothing to indicates that USchick has acknowledged that Wikipedia copyright policy has been violated, and the ANI thread is getting nowhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you see her violate any more copyrights and I will pop in a wee block. It isn't right that she be allowed to waste volunteers' time like this. Whether it's lack of competence or dishonesty I do not care at this point as she has had all the warning she should need. I hope she gets the message and a block won't be necessary. Meantime, I would like you to disengage from the AN/I thread and let others handle it. --John (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Abiogenesis Article
There are several areas of the article which lack citations. Why, did you freeze that page without them? Thank you SpazAbiogenesis (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC) " Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

Whoever from the Harvard Center for Astrophysics was trying to get citations removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpazAbiogenesis (talk • contribs)


 * It was a ridiculous edit war and you need to take your concerns to article talk. When the protection is expired I will block anyone reverting at all on the article, so this is your chance to decide a compromise version. Admins who protect are always accused of protecting the wrong version; it can't be helped. Unless living people or legal issues are involved, it doesn't matter if the article is slightly inaccurate for a couple of weeks. --John (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above user is a block-evading sockpuppet, John. See the blocks of User:MDPub13, User:EunuchRU and Sockpuppet investigations/AbioScientistGenesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I am sure the SPI will deal with that angle. Nevertheless, there needs to be a discussion at article talk to decide what to do about the content dispute. --John (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Connie Talbot
The audacity you display in making sweeping bold edits and threatening to block anyone who reverts you but then just ignoring talk page conversations on the topic of the edits is utterly, utterly sickening. I'm sure you'd be quick enough to step back in if someone dared edit the article, but a talk page discussion? I'm sure you've got much more important things to do. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly have got better things to do than hang around there and be called an idiot or a troll. Other than to tell me you are upset, what was the point of posting here? The last point I made at article talk remains unaddressed; you need to find better sources as we cannot use tabloids on a BLP. Feel free to ping me again if you do that. Until then, --John (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have "to find better sources". As I have explained, your interpretation of policy is utterly bogus. Context matters when judging the reliability of sources; while extraordinary claims require a number of strong sources, uncontroversial claims can be cited to less extraordinary sources. So, for instance, an article in The Times alongside one from the BBC, both reporting that a politician has been charged with a crime, may be appropriate for including information about a criminal record. However, information about (say) the plotline of a character in Coronation Street may be appropriately cited to an episode summary in The Mirror or an interview in OK! magazine with the actor. Very uncontroversial information is often left uncited- our policies and guidelines allow for this; for instance, the GA criteria require only that certain kinds of information is cited. The fact that you chose to remove the article's sources but not the article's content reveals just how benign the content is, in many cases- how could it possibly be better to leave claims in a BLP unsourced than leave them sourced to sources you don't like? J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * These are all points you have made in article talk. I have read them. I don't agree that the section I have highlighted from the previous version of the article (it's in to make it really visible) comes into the category "Very uncontroversial information". If you want to restore this material it needs better sourcing. If you want to argue that uncontroversial information doesn't need proper sourcing (I am dubious, but you're right, I left some of the innocuous stuff there with a  tag for now) then you can feel free to make that point in article talk, or ask others' opinions (WP:BLPN?) If you can do so without calling me a vandal, a troll or an idiot, you will probably increase the possibility of our having a productive discussion and coming to an amicable compromise. I can tell you are annoyed, but try to see that I am only trying to preserve our core values here, and I know you are too. --John (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding "As far as I'm concerned, this is an administrator misrepresenting policy and threatening to block those who disagree with him in a content dispute."; if you do wish to spin it that way in an effort to win, I caution you to beware of the boomerang! Policy is utterly unambiguous regarding the need to have reliable sourcing on BLPs, and you would be struggling to portray this as a "content dispute" given that I have not substantively edited the article until I came to clean up the BLP violations. I am unambiguously wearing my admin hat on this matter and I have no apologies to make about anything I have done. You on the other hand have (twice) called me an "idiot" (FWIW I have a dazzlingly high IQ) and once called me a troll. I don't think that would look all that good if you did go to Arbcom. Up to you of course. I recommend you find better sources for the material you want to keep on the article; that was and remains the best way forwards. --John (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really starting to struggle to believe that you're doing anything other than try to provoke me, now. I'm going to list some responses to your comments above.
 * "I don't agree that the section I have highlighted from the previous version of the article (it's in to make it really visible) comes into the category "Very uncontroversial information"." That a girl lives in a town, that her father is an engineer and that she liked watching films with her grandmother is controversial? What planet do you live on?
 * "If you want to argue that uncontroversial information doesn't need proper sourcing (I am dubious, but you're right, I left some of the innocuous stuff there with a tag for now) then you can feel free to make that point in article talk, or ask others' opinions (WP:BLPN?)" I don't want to argue that. It's written straight into policy. From WP:V- "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." From the GAC- "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Both require only that certain kinds of information is cited.
 * "you will probably increase the possibility of our having a productive discussion and coming to an amicable compromise" You're threatening to block anyone who reverts your edits. You have absolutely no right to talk about "compromise".
 * "I can tell you are annoyed" Wow, you really must have "have a dazzlingly high IQ".
 * "try to see that I am only trying to preserve our core values here" I tried. I'm only human.
 * "if you do wish to spin it that way in an effort to win, I caution you to beware of the boomerang!" Don't patronise me. You've been spinning and misrepresenting policy since this dispute began. There's very little chance of this ending amicably while you continue the way you are.
 * "Policy is utterly unambiguous regarding the need to have reliable sourcing on BLPs" Of course it is. You and I just disagree over what constitutes a reliable source. I believe that context is important, as our policy on reliable sources says. You, apparently, do not, and work tirelessly to remove sources listed on List of tabloid newspapers which cannot be used in any way in any BLP. (Hold on, when did that get deleted?)
 * "I am unambiguously wearing my admin hat on this matter and I have no apologies to make about anything I have done" How come you're allowed to wear your admin hat and I'm not?
 * "You on the other hand have (twice) called me an "idiot"" I have said that if you believe a claim that is clearly false, then you are an idiot. You then repeatedly affirmed that you believed it. This isn't my fault. Bill: Tom, if you touch that, you're an idiot. Tom, touching the fire: How dare you call me an idiot!
 * "I recommend you find better sources for the material you want to keep on the article; that was and remains the best way forwards." I wouldn't dare. I'd probably end up blocked for citing the wrong kind of source- sadly, I haven't got a handy list of banned publications.
 * J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've offered a proposed solution to this situation. I hope you will find it reasonable and amenable- if so, I'm happy to start working on adjusted the article as soon as we are both ready. (I will be away from Wikipedia shortly, but back online for an hour or two in about six hours, and then will be available at various times tomorrow.) J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for offering to compromise. I will have a proper look later tonight. --John (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Drums and Wireless: BBC Radio Sessions 77–89, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 18:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * You're very welcome. --John (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Care to comment?
Hi there,

I thought you might be interested in contributing to a deletion discussion here based on your interest in related subject matter. Best,   petrarchan47  t  c   22:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you. --John (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking for help
Hello John, seeing as one of your areas of expertise in music and Wikipedia editing, I am reaching out to you to see if you would be able to help me assemble and accurately complete Dumpstaphunk's wikipedia page. I did a significant amount of research about the band and added what I found to: * I am new to Wikipedia editing, but I am eager to learn all I can about how I can add information correctly and accurately. A side-note, I'm a big music enthusiast and have a passion for sharing information about the bands I enjoy. Please let me know how I can further this project along and ensure its longevity in the Wiki-sphere. Thanks so much! -Alex, aka Alwaysnarnar (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will have a look a this. Welcome to Wikipedia! --John (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Prose review?
If you have time, I'd greatly appreciate a prose review for Conte di Cavour-class battleship which is undergoing a FAC at the moment and has received some complaints about the language used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look some time today, or at the latest tomorrow. --John (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been several days since you've made any changes. Are you satisfied now or would you like more time to work through the article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the ENGVAR issue I raised? --John (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's normally a good argument, but there's not an actual single word of Brit English in your example. Armour wasn't used at all in the infobox and so remained invisible to the reader. To be honest, most stubs don't have enough prose to make it worth worrying about retaining the type of language unless there are strong national ties, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

hey
I did drop a note to that user. To be honest? ... Looks like a WP:CIR issue. Not sure I can help .. I have too much going on now to "teach" anyone. — Ched : ?  04:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Thanks anyway for trying to help. --John (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skylarking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonsuch (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) 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Tauriel and WP:OVERLINK
Hi. Regarding your removal of the wikilinks to the words "English" and "New Zealand" in the Tauriel article here and here, and your stated rationale in your edit summary that this is supported by WP:OVERLINK, that part of MoS states that generally, a link should appear only once in an article after the Lead section (excepting infoboxes, tables, captions, and footnotes). Those two wikilinks are the only wikilinks of those two words in the article, so it does not constitute overlinking. If you disagree, please let me know your viewpoint. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "the following are not usually linked: * * * the names of major geographic features and locations; languages ..."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Thanks Bbb23. What possible benefit would linking English language give on the infobox? The reader is already reading in the English language, so he or she knows what it is already... --John (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I missed that. Thanks for pointing out that out to me, guys. Sorry about that. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thought this might appeal
"Ach, who needs a fancy barometer?" -- Hillbillyholiday talk 08:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Like it, thank you. --John (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid your secret is out
You are not a real person! Beep boo-dee-beep. :P Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks for the heads-up. I also see "John obviously has some way to automatically detect and delete any change to which he objects"; this editor is not yet acquainted with the watchlist! Was I unduly harsh to remove it? I don't particularly object to this quantum of info being added, but it was such hard work to prune out all the trivial "mentions" from this article during FAR that I really didn't want to see one added back. --John (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England ...
Is probably about ready for thinking about FAC.. might I persuade you to copyedit it for me? (I'll beg Eric also... best get all the help I can ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I'm sorry I didn't notice this. I'll have a look. --John (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL... it's not even 24 hours after I posted it... I think we can leave off the capital punishment for a while... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I've curbed the worst excesses of Ealdgyth's passion for "however", so that should be one less thing to look out for. Eric   Corbett  19:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged. What's the punishment for that, anyway... 30 lashes with a wet noodle? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work both of you. I've had a first look and it's a lovely article. I'll look properly later tonight. --John (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't think I can help you if you insist on disregarding WP:SEASON. It's an important part of MOS, which in turn is a criterion for FA. --John (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not disregarding WP:SEASON - I actively avoid it whenever it doesn't drastically change the meaning - but if you change something from "late summer" to "second half" of a year when you're talking about a military campaign - it is misleading. WP:SEASON states "a date or month may be preferable to a season name, unless there is a logical connection." There is a logical connection between when someone can campaign and when they can't - this seems obvious to me. I'm open to other ways of wording the information that gets the information across - but I'm not open to being actively misleading in terms of military campaigns. If you say "second half" you leave open the interpretation that it could have occurred in a 6 month period - but we know it did not .. .that it occurred in a two month period when it was possible to campaign. The source states that they arrived sometime between the two feasts of St Mary - these are the Assumption that happens on 15 August and the Nativity on 8 Sept. We could say "in August or September of 1069" if you insist on not going with "late summer". But you must admit that a change from "late summer" to "second half" is a big change in context - from maybe 2 months to 6 months and including a lot of different seasons in that phrase. The second one is less worrisome to me, and I could live with your phrasing, although it's not ideal. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Precision, with an explanation of the importance, would be ideal I think. --John (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think military campaigns are an area where WP:SEASON doesn't really apply. That Hitler's armies were campaigning in Russia in winter is a very important part of the story, for instance. It matters not one whit whether it's the northern or the southern hemisphere's winter, although the context surely makes that clear. A northern hemisphere winter implies a certain set of environmental conditions that "late in the year" simply doesn't. Eric   Corbett  18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. In Hitler's case we have references and precise dates, in fact we even have an article about it. See my longer response in article talk. --John (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that, I'll take a look. Eric   Corbett  18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't finished it at that point; I have now. This is one of these finicky little points of MoS that is actually quite important and worth enforcing, in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I still welcome you input here - I hope we've reached a compromise that we can both live with. I would love to see you continue copyediting. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'll finish tonight. --John (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's me finished, other than the two queries I made at article talk. It's a very nice article, you should be proud of yourself. I think I'd like to add a sourced mention of how important the season was for the invasion. Would that be ok? --John (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it'd fit better in a footnote than in the body, otherwise, fine. I'll work on the other queries asap, perhaps tonight if the weather doesn't blow us away - we're due to get some nasty thunderstorms this evening... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I will maybe have to rely on you or Eric to format it as a footnote for me; I am notoriously rubbish at Wiki syntax. It's already evening here and it's a beautiful night. I think I'll open a beer and kick back. Thanks for asking me to copyedit your fine work. --John (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still three hours from "yardarm" time here .. so I shall have to continue working for a bit. I have a nice Pilsner Urquell lurking in the fridge for after I knock off work... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmm, that'll taste good whn the time comes. I'm going to have an Erdinger; crisp and fruity. --John (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm common; I'm just about to open a can of Stella. What I really came to discuss with you though was your recent addition of a comma to "Christmas Day, 1066". My view is that if I was speaking that I wouldn't pause after "Day", so I wouldn't put a comma there. It's obviously no big deal, I'm just curious as to what your thinking is. In other news, you may already have noticed that Maggie's GAR has been closed as "keep". Eric   Corbett  23:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember when Stella Artois was marketed as "reassuringly expensive". It's a perfectly nice beer, especially for a sticky summer night. On commas, I could go either way; MoS is uncharacteristically silent. It needs to be consistent within the article. Thanks for the heads-up on Thatcher. --John (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

you reverted-ish part of my change, but you were wrong
see Talk page for Stephen Crane - 108.54.62.155 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and I have responded in article talk. --John (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the last RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. --John (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Celtic
As an administrator you should be aware of a few things. One of them is that consensus changes. Another is that re-adding a change to an article purely on the basis of a consensus that hasn't been evident on the page for two years, isn't on the talk page, or evident in its archives, and isn't evident on the other relevant article, isn't good enough. To compound that by refusing to enter into discussion of your edit is simply not good enough. Could you be good enough to show me where this alleged consensus was established, and why it should be reintroduced without question after being discarded some while back? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Try a look through the talk page archives? I think the onus is on you to demonstrate your alleged new consensus. Feel free to make your arguments at talk. --John (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Suri 100 (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice
I like the link you just added to your user page; very apposite given recent events. As I recall, our own early interactions were a little frosty, but we seem to have got over that now. Why so many seem to find it impossible to understand that reasonable people can reasonably disagree will remain a mystery to me for ever. Eric  Corbett  21:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm a great believer in managing disagreements productively. Adults use this to learn and grow. It's how the world works. I'm not sure if EE really wants that article improved to GA standard. Might stand back for a while. --John (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that EE thinks it's already GA standard whereas I, and obviously you, don't. But I think it's close to be fair. I've seen worse. Eric   Corbett  22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it's a lovely article all right. Immaculately referenced. But it needs the prose refreshed, as several people have said in the review. "Note" and "remarkably" are two red flags for me when it comes to prose, but you're right, it isn't far off. --John (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've mentiomed you both at ANI.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks. Did you mention that you'd told me to "fuck off"? Or that you'd called Eric a "flaming asshole"? I wish you would calm down. Certainly don't post here again unless it is an apology. Tomorrow or the next day will be fine. --John (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The lines are drawn
Hi John. Thought you might get a kick out of this. Serious stuff. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Das war erstaunlich gut, und überraschend lustig! Danke sehr. Wie geht's Dir überhaupt? --John (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing funny about the Fall :) Not bad, enjoying the first passable Irish summer since 2006. Going to see The National & ZZ Top here next week, and Swans are playing in September. Which is nice. Missed them first time round, and their output is as good now was the 80s. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah! If you live long enough, all the good music comes around again. I saw the Breeders the other night in Glasgow; they were better than when I saw them the last time 20 years ago. Good to hear from you pal. There's still a pint of 80/- for you if you ever make it to Edinburgh, you know. --John (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Gods of Cognitive Dissonance will have to work very hard if the weirdest moment of the year isn't going to be Brix Smith (yes, that one) in full tory-garden-party getup, doing the fashion commentary for Ascot on Channel 4. (John, as Edinburgh's representative I want to complain about your weather; I don't understand how this place contrives to simultaneously be swelteringly hot and biting cold at the same time.) – iridescent  21:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, have the Gods of Cognitive Dissonance not already been toiling away. Hmm, just goes to show; God of Cognitive Dissonance, hardest game in the world. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * John, you saw she left the pixies during the week, no reason given, but its fairly obvious; Pixies are not really going anywhere where as Breethers album seems likely. I'm still not sure if she or Francis wrote all those bass lines. I suspect it was her. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Bell School
Hi John. I see that your recent edit has reintroduced into the article the name of the pupil (victim) in the recent court case, by way of the old Telegraph article title cite. Just wanted to make sure you realise there is a possiblility, if you live in the UK, that you've broken the court no-disclosure order, or possibly section 1 (Anonymity of victims of certain offences) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. This law is hard to understand, and quite possibly you would be OK and only the publisher (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.) could be prosecuted, which would be impractical - but I personally would not take that chance without some high-quality legal guidance to that effect. You might want to undo your change of cite. This is being discussed and voted on in Talk:Bishop Bell School. Rwendland (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed the reference to one that doesn't mention the pupil's name--John (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC).

Navboxes on author pages
Since you have over 100 edits at Charles Dickens and John Steinbeck, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

John
Your name on Wikipedia is John? Seriously? How much did you pay Jimbo Wales for that? Tehehehe --Rorre09 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I paid a year's salary on the project, plus bonuses. It was worth it though. --John (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide me with your credit card information and account number. I can help you get admin status and be the scenes access to WikiMedia meetings with Jimbo himself. --Rorre09 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561992802 your edit] to Susanna Rowson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Graupner|Graupner Family Vault]], St. Matthew's Church, South Boston, Massachusetts, United States Moved in 1866 to Mount Hope Cemetery, Boston


 * Thanks, bot, I've fixed my mistake. --John (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Long as it doesnt happen again. Ceoil (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Deflag means what?
In clean-ups of seven entries for books in the Cadfael Chronicles, the description of what you did included the term "deflag". The link from deflag seems to mean something about flags and icons. More to the point, when I looked at before/after versions of the articles, I saw no change that seemed to relate to flags or icons. I am trying to learn in my slow way -- is deflag a standard part of your edit message line? Your descriptions of what you cleaned up are precise, as to overlinking, for example. What am I missing?

Thanks for cleaning up the articles, and for upgrading The Heretic's Apprentice from has no citations, to needs more citations, now it has a list of them. The article needs a publication history, which will be done soon (this summer), along with four other of the books in the series, which I am re-reading in order. What more do you feel is needed in the way of citations? Again, asking for my education. Perhaps now I have figured out when the leading zero is wanted in a date, and when it is not. Not wanted in 5 May 2013 but is wanted in 2013-06-21. I did a bunch of the latter incorrectly in access dates, in June, sorry.

I will watch your page so you can post replies here.Prairieplant (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My recent AWB work has been mainly removing superfluous links (WP:OVERLINK) and removing superfluous flags from infoboxes (WP:ICONDECORATION). In the cases you highlight I performed the former but not the latter. I will have a look at the other matters you raise but it may not be for a day or two. Ping me if I forget. --John (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John, very clear. I do not know how to ping anyone, so I will wait.  Prairieplant (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just meant you could leave me another message here. I will try not to forget so you don't need to. --John (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

John -- will you see archived copy? I am still interested to know what more you think is needed for The Heretic's Apprentice as to citations. You changed message on it from has none, to needs more. The entry lacks Publication History. Perhaps you had something specific in mind? Prairieplant (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick one
Hi John, quick one, I didn't see an WP:EXPLAINBLOCK on User talk:Imgaril (or linking which accounts, so possibly the other accounts I didn't check). Thanks Widefox ; talk 11:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's so long ago, I can't remember. I can do some digging but it might take a while. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Kein Problem! Widefox ; talk 11:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is coming back to me now. were all blocked by me within a short period on 8 March 2012. I think it was a case of WP:DUCK and I seem to recall may also have been involved. I really should have made a note in the block log as I honestly cannot now recall what he exact issue was. I can dig further for you or ping Black Kite if you like. --John (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it might be related to my block of . Still looking. --John (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * sorry it took some digging, there's no rush - just thought would help document/in future. Widefox ; talk 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I cannot imagine why I did not document it at the time. --John (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Schneider CA1
Hi John. In Schneider CA1 you made some changes of a stylistic nature — and some changes in content. I disagree with some of the stylistic changes, but I can live with them; they are largely a matter of taste. The changes in content I corrected as they contradicted or incorrectly reflected the sources, explaining why they were incorrect. You then, without explanation, again returned them to their factually incorrect state. Might all this be resolved by me accepting your stylistic changes, and you accepting that, even if they are stylistically awkward, my representations of the sources are to be preferred, as I have actually read them? ;o)

Kind regards, --MWAK (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be preferable to detail what the content changes you think I have made are, in article talk, and we can thrash out a compromise wording which is true to the sources and also reads well and idiomatically in English. For example, we would never use "annulled" in this way; it's a "false friend" from annuler in French, but it doesn't work in English. --John (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, Let's do that.--MWAK (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * John, I've made some remarks on the Schneider CA1 talk page. They include some proposals about reducing the ambiguity in the text — most of these problems had their origin in my failure to present the content in a sufficiently clear manner — and you might want to suggest some additional or superior solutions.--MWAK (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I will take a look when I can. Probably later tonight. --John (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sally Bercow
Hey, John. Please could you have a quick look at Sally Bercow's article. (Talkpage discussion) I removed some Daily Mail citations, and have been reverted a couple of times and accused of vandalism. I'm not sure on the reliability of the other publications, but I did notice the article also has IMDb as a reference. Also, can you point me to where it says for definite that the Daily Mail is not acceptable for BLPs? Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've commented there. --John (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Heretic's Apprentice by Ellis Peters
John, the ping you asked for -- what further citations would lead you to find the article satisfactory in that regard, to remove the tag about needing more citations? You changed the tag from 'has none' to 'needs more'. Thanks! Prairieplant (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look and will comment more fully in article talk. --John (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote, thanks. Wishing for someone more knowledgeable on the subject of heresies; if not, just abridge that part. Much work ahead.Prairieplant (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can give you a hand although I am not familiar with the work nor an expert on the subject. --John (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

All help is welcome. I am re-reading the series, working on the articles as I finish each book. I still have three books to read before I reach The Heretic's Apprentice and all its heresies and its mystery to be solved. I hope the part on Pilgrims and monasteries is adequately referenced. I learned a lot with that section, enhancing the book and my general knowledge. It will help me when my local library again subscribes to ProQuest, so I can see more of the non-blog commentary on the books.Prairieplant (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562881823 your edit] to Dr. Seuss may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * illustrated short stories, mostly in Redbook Magazine. Some of these were later collected in volumes such as The Sneetches and Other Stories or reworked into independent books (''If I
 * d pronunciation inconsistent with his German surname. He himself noted that it rhymed with "voice" his own pronunciation being  and Alexander Liang (his collaborator on the [[
 * Thanks again for pointing out the mistake, bot. --John (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not unilaterally unclose discussions
If participants in a debate were allowed to unilaterally undo the closings of discussions where they disagree with the result, anarchy would result. Your unclosing has been reverted, and please do not do that again without discussing it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, so you are a supervoter. Please do not close discussions where you are unable to understand the issues involved. A simple majority is not a consensus. I am sure you are a great person, but on this occasion you have acted stupidly and damaged the community with your stupid action. --John (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Letting you know ....
Although we appear to have more similar than dissimilar views on the matter, I have just referenced one of your remarks at AN as a bad example. It happened to be the one that jumped out at me, for which I apologise. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks. It seems there are a lot of people here who can't tell the difference between criticising behaviour and insulting the person. I sometimes think my four-year-old has more emotional maturity and common sense than the shower of cunts and arseholes who bay and howl at the drama boards. Well, I hope they are happy, from Fram who started this shitstorm, Sjakkalle who broke policy to try to make his punitive and incompetent close stick, all the way down to the bottom feeders who seem to exist just to slap each other's backs about how civil they are being while they chase content contributors off the project. Another day's work well done, eh? --John (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Expect more copyediting requests, John. That's assuming I still maintain interest in editing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ealdgyth, it is always a pleasure to hear from you. Not sure how much time I'll be putting in myself now either but you are welcome to ask. --John (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * John, since it's my remark you were responding to, on seeing Yngvadottir's comment, I wanted to assure you I wasn't offended by it. Puzzled a bit, since I really can't understand why that was your reaction, but not offended. For my part, I hope Eric comes back in a few weeks, and makes a commitment to try his best to not fly off the handle. That would be a win for everyone. But I'm also happy that a line has begun to be drawn as to what is clearly beyond the pale. I'd genuinely be curious to know what environment you work in off-wiki, and whether the type of discourse that provoked all this -- and that took place in the AN thread -- is acceptable there. I'm really not trying to be annoying or condescending, just in all collaborative environments I've been in -- academic, artistic, professional; on multiple continents -- this type of abusive, incivil language happens exceedingly rarely, and is always followed by embarrassment and mutual rueful apologies rather than escalation. I'd love to understand better the point of view that it is acceptable in response to people feeling their productivity bogged down by others. Martinp (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like homilies and parables Martin, and I think what I particularly didn't like about yours was the implication that we have a hierarchy here. "I am reminded of a technical group I managed several years ago. We were a well functioning team and brought in a genius new team member, who had some real behavioural issues. Unfortunately, I tolerated his antics, giving him only weak chastisements." We do not operate like that here; Wikipedia is not an experiment in social organisation but neither is it your workplace or mine. It is a hobby, and everyone here is a volunteer and can leave whenever they want with no penalty. Neither is it your place or mine to issue "chastisements" to other editors; we tend to operate in a fairly loosely-organised way here, one step short of anarchy, yet look what a nice encyclopaedia we have written. I say "we", but I notice you have made only a very few edits, with 411 article edits, and 442 to the WP space. What we have traditionally had here is a respect for those who write the articles, and the idea of you (or me, as I say) "chastising" someone who has put so much of themselves into the project for a momentary loss of temper did genuinely fill me for a moment with physical nausea. Nevertheless, as several others have pointed out how mean it came across to express my feeling honestly rather than remaining silent, I apologise to you. --John (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply John (and the apology, though I really don't think it's necessary). I can see where you're coming from if you thought I was asserting a personal right to chastise or "give a homily". But that was not my intent. We are indeed consensus-driven rather than hierarchical around here, and I was not trying to "lord it over" Eric/Malleus. I was just trying to add my voice to the discussion and explain why I felt -- and continue to feel -- that the block that had been imposed by other members of the community was unfortunately necessary and a rapid overturn of it would be actively harmful to the community. I used an example from my personal experience to justify why I felt this, from an environment which was hierarchical, where I did have the power (but did not exercise it) that in our case the community has and was exercising. It's isn't at all about punishing or chastising Eric, at least not for me. It's about establishing that civility matters here, at least to the extent that someone who chronically responds to even pretty mild criticism by always having to roar louder, and when called on it by several people has a complete meltdown, needs to adapt his communication style -- or leave.
 * Finally, a point about my edit intensity. You correctly point out that I have been at best on the sidelines here for years. That's exactly due to the Wild West atmosphere that prevails, with drive-by templating, clueless "warnings" (aka threats) and blocks, and rampant incivility. My work involves knowledge development in a tough, intense, genuinely collaborative, and exciting environment. I love it, and I joined thinking doing the same here might be a nice hobby, albeit a "busman's holiday". But during my first attempt at an article, admittedly a pretty obscure one, the "collaboration" manifested itself by 2 regulars appearing out of nowhere and having a disagreement whether the article deserved a stub tag, a cleanup tag, or both -- helping neither clean it up nor expand it. Then - crickets chirping. I actually have some expert knowledge in a different area where Wikipedia's articles are quite poor and I'd like to help out there, maybe even kickstart a sorely needed rewrite of some articles. But the talk pages are filled by mutual broadsides between warring editors who call each other names when someone merely flips two existing poorly written paragraphs. People who write well -- and are clearly very articulate and deliberate in their choice of words -- run around bullying each other and random others who end up in their sights. In my work environment, none of those would be tolerated. Here it has become part of natural discourse - for instance, why did you consign to posterity with the Save page button the comments you've made on Sjakkele's close on this very page, rather than something worded like "Sjakkele, you were probably trying to reduce drama in a situation you felt was clear, but the discussion was ongoing, the consensus was far from clear, and your close rationale was in fact a supervote. That's what I object to." without accusations of incompetence etc? The discussion on AN included debate around whether Eric's behaviour is driving away editors or not. But the issue is not how many editors have ragequit after a personal fencing match with Malleus, it's about how many are like me, and fail to truly wholeheartedly contribute a tenth or hundredth of what they could, since any time they take the lid off and see the writhing underneath, they decide they have other things to do with their free time. Martinp (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah Martin, l'enfer c'est les autres, n'est-ce pas? It's in the nature of working with others that we annoy each other from time to time; it's because we care, and that's great. It's a life-long process to realise that some people will be just as aggrieved by a well-intentioned bad close or a well-intentioned bad parable as others will be by being called an "asshole" or a "cocksucker". I hereby undertake to consciously be nicer and more patient with those who annoy me. If there is ever anything I can do to directly help you to edit closer to your potential here, please let me know and I will endeavour to help. Thanks for your thoughtful message. --John (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC) And let me also add that I meant no disrespect or personal affront to Fram or Sjakkalle in mentioning them in the same sentence as the bottom-feeders on our drama boards. The former made a rather strict interpretation of NPA which I disagree with, as does a significant sector of our community, and the latter made a poor close and then flirted with wheelwarring when I undid it. I'm confident he got the message that his actions were unwise and that he will not repeat them. Hey ho. --John (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A bit confused...
Talk:Ecgbert (bishop)/GA1 - I'm not sure what is confusing to this reviewer ... can you look over it and see if I'm like insane or if I've really dropped the ball... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will have a look, probably later this evening. I'm on holiday though so if I don't get to it tonight it may be a couple of days. I'll do my best. --John (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appreciate it. We're sweltering in a heat wave for the next day so I have more "inside" time right now. Hope the holiday is going well! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I managed a quick pass. Let me know if it needs more. --John (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. Much appreciated. Norman conquest is close to its bronze star! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, my pleasure. Sorry I couldn't give it more time. Glad to hear NC is doing well at FAR, it deserves to. --John (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Allen Carr article reversion
I'm curious about the reversion of the change I made to the Alan Carr page. I added an "In popular culture" section referencing Francine Lewis' impression of Alan during her performance in the seventh season of Britain's Got Talent. This is described in the article on her that describes her appearance on the show. I did include internal Wikipedia links to Francine's page and the Britain's Got Talent (season 7) pages, which mention her appearances on that program. Did I need an external reference in order for my addition to the ballot, or was there something else?

I haven't been doing edits on Wikipedia for all that long, so it is quite likely that I got something wrong. I, too, am A Bear of Very Little Brain, and would be happy to learn that I should be doing. /Bruce/ [aka Slasher] 23:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucewh (talk • contribs)
 * Sure, though you may not like it. Wikipedia cannot record everything and so we choose the most important things. Francine Lewis doing an impression of the subject would not come into it. If something really dramatic happened and it attracted widespread comment in reliable sources, we could look at that again. --John (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!
I was just finishing up the final run through ... did not mean to conflict with you! I thought I'd make a run through for season issues and make sure that fyrd and housecarl were properly consistent. Now I can start begging for a copyedit to Battle of Hastings! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to beg, it's always a pleasure. I saw you mention me at Iridescent's page so took a look. I am sure it will be up to your usual standard. I am working at a low rate as I am on holiday and doing stuff but I will definitely have a proper look. --John (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No hurry at all. I'm busy with the season stuff here too - weeds seem to spring from sprout to waist high overnight. As a bonus - there isn't a single mention of a season in the article at all! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mention of seasons is fine where they are relevant to the narrative. I am tidying my books today and when I find it I would like to add mention about the necessity of a summer or autumn landing, referenced to Churchill. I'll discuss in article talk as well, of course. --John (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I did find A History of the English-speaking Peoples but it only relates (on p127) that there were six weeks without a south wind and that the Normans brought the bones of St Valery and carried them along the seashore. "This proved effective" and the invasion took place with a south-west wind. I am not sure this merits a mention after all. --John (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I'd have some concerns with sourcing that to Churchill also - he's not exactly current or particuarly a scholarly source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This particular story comes from the Roman de Rou. How much credibility you choose to give Wace, writing a century after the event, is up to you. – iridescent  12:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since the sources I'm using for the article don't give it much credence ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I quite agree; I just thought it would've been cool to add Churchill's thoughts on seasonal issues, but it turns out he never said that. I am chastened that my recollections of the source were inaccurate. The article looks good. Did you approve my copyedits? I might want to take another pass. --John (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They looked fine to me at a quick glance. I figured that if you had concerns or questions about anything you'd bring 'em up on the talk page... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good! I am still pissed off that my memory played me false like that, I must be getting old. WC would have been the ultimate source on what times of year a cross-channel invasion can and can't be attempted. Will take a second, more stringent pass, later this evening or tomorrow am. I have to say it's looking beautiful and it is hard to find prose to take issue with. But I will try. --John (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If User:Eric Corbett beats me often enough I can eventually learn. I do try to avoid too many commas now... As an aside, I think Billy Boy would have been happy to cross the channel whenever he got the winds - it can't have been easy keeping all those fractious nobles gathered together and waiting on the winds. Not to mention the expense of feeding them and their horses! Given the timing of Eddie's death, and the need to build the ships to cross with, there wasn't really much chance of them getting over to England before summer at the earliest. Billy might have won even if Tostig and Hardrada hadn't spoiled things in the north, but the aftermath would probably have been bloodier if Fulford and Stamford Bridge hadn't happened. Tostig and Hardrada would probably have contested Billy's conquest and the Godwin's might have rallied behind Tostig. There's no denying that Billy was a pretty competent general, and that he outgeneraled Harold at Hastings. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're a great writer. I tend to avoid "a number of" as it could mean literally anything. I'm also not a fan of sentences with a "not only... but also ..."; I prefer to use a more prosaic structure (.... and .... happened) and let the drama come from the language (and the sources!). Other than that I'd say your prose is at a very high level indeed.
 * Regarding the battle, I am more into the 20th-century stuff and I like to compare it with Operation Sealion which even Hitler and Göring weren't stupid enough to attempt in 1940 or subsequently. William the Bastard (as Churchill calls him) had tactical surprise, a divided and distracted enemy, no naval opposition, and superior fighting skills. I don't think any of these would have pertained in 1940. Not to mention the Royal Air Force, though in my opinion their role has been popularly over-stated. --John (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hitler was his own worst enemy. Leaving aside many other idiocies, declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor has to rate up there in the list of "greatest historical blunders ever". England's been lucky since 1066 - the right conditions have never really occurred again for a repeat of William's feat. My own opinion is that William would have conquered eventually, because of the military strength that he commanded compared to the A-S military structure. The A-S structure hadn't changed much since Alfred, and William's forces clearly had the greater military technology. Castles combined with cavalry would probably have meant the eventual conquest of England, it just would have been slower. Prince Louis in 1215-1216 couldn't repeat the feat partly because he wasn't fully supported, he lacked political accumen enough to not piss off the Anglo-Norman baronage, and England had 2 centuries almost of building castles all over the place as well as time to rejoin the mainstream of European military developments. Leaving aside William and Mary's "invasion", the only other chance of invasion that could have possibly worked was Napoleon ... and even he couldn't get past the Royal Navy. (We won't discuss the problems you Brits had dealing with some uppity colonists ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of two things. One was at the Jorvik centre a few weeks ago, when one of the staff dressed as a Viking was talking about the Norman Conquest, and I pulled him up for using "we" too glibly about the Anglo-Saxons versus the Normans. As I pointed out, Northern English people like him and Scottish people like me would probably have a lot more in common, linguistically and socially, with the Normans and even more with the Norwegians and Danes than we would with the A-S. The whole "we/they/us/them" thing is highly blurred for a Scot, or let's say nuanced. "They" frequently came up here and burned down all "our" castles. On the other hand they did come up with this terribly good language. The other, talking about pesky colonists, was my old friend Greg when I used to live in California. We used to love to sink a few beers and argue history. One of our favourite routines was to discuss the last date at which Britain and the US could viably have had a war. I think we settled on 1898 or so; had our interests diverged sufficiently over the Spanish-American War, I can imagine the RN giving the USN a bloody nose or two. Maybe even burning Washington again. The Oregon boundary dispute was also frequently raised as a late casus belli, though it was 50 years earlier. It's purely a "what-if" though as even then we had too much kith and kin with each other for it to fly. Any time much after that the US wins too easily. Plus (I always used to argue), there's long been a more developed ethic of pragmatism among the Whitehall lot of diplomats and military than on your side; maybe that originates with losing the US but "we" walked out of India and most of Africa with only a few minor wars. Compare that with Vietnam etc and you guys have a lot to learn about losing gracefully... or so I used to argue after a few beers. Anyway, fun working with you again. --John (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I haven't got to my second pass yet. Will try for tomorrow. --John (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just got word hubby is working 12 hour shifts at night next week. Guess I'll be getting a lot done on wikipedia... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh. I'm on holiday, nominally but the User:John household never sleeps. Been doing a lot of travelling including a wee visit to Washington, DC and recovering from jet-lag, catching up with household tasks and social commitments. I am in Glasgow tonight meeting a friend. Back tomorrow and will look at your article again. --John (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I managed a slightly deeper second pass at the article. I asked one question in article talk. Other than that I think I would support it on prose quality and the rest at FAR; I would also be happy to help you respond to any concerns raised there. What do you think? --John (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're probably close to ready. I need to deal with the usual dinner time stuff around the house (dogs in, horses fed, cats tripped over...) but will get it up at FAC tonight or tomorrow... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Petty apartheid


The article Petty apartheid has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Very short article which does not add anything much beyond the contents of Apartheid in South Africa.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This was already agreed as a redirect as long ago as 2006. Restoring the redirect would be a far smarter move than deleting it. --John (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UDR political poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:UDR political poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that 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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorted. --John (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for uploading that file to Ulster Defence Regiment. I opposed its removal by a copyright editor on the grounds that we need to show opposition to the regiment in addition to the other history to balance NPOV. The discussion regarding the removal is here Non-free_content_review. There are several other files under discussion including another political poster called File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg which I think should also be restored to the "Political comments" section. I don't want to do it myself because I got into trouble when I last did. I was accused of trying to flaunt copyright rules but the copyright editors don't seem to mind you adding the first image so presumably they'll let you add the second one as well? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh. I didn't see any note at article talk to reflect this discussion, which one would normally expect. I may well chime in at the NFCR page. Thanks for the note. --John (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no note. They were removed by a copyright editor and restored by me.  I got banned for 48 hours for it because I was 1hr 30 minutes inside the 1RR limit.  I then started the discussion at NFCR and removed the two posters pending the outcome of discussions.  Your input would be greatly appreciated.  SonofSetanta (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Flight 214 / Criticism of NTSB by ALPA
Please come to Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 to discuss encyclopedic value of ALPA's early criticism of NTSB for fueling speculation. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

David Rowland
Hi John

Thank you very much for your help. I just wanted to know as well if the source from the blog on this page is a reliable?

Kind Regards

Hopes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatherhope55 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, blogs are not a reliable source for anything controversial on a BLP. --John (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at User:Sjakkalle
"someone like you who does not contribute content and can barely speak the language" is insulting, untrue, and totally uncalled for. The rest of your rant was completely off base as well. One User:Sjakkalle is worth a hundred of you. Quale (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The conversation was on 5 July, nearly one month ago. I stand by what I said. Now be gone, and troll my page no more. --John (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Scotire
I am sorry to say that after a brief respite that his/her antics are continuing. Let me know if you want diffs. Ben  Mac  Dui  08:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Sorry for your trouble. --John (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Thank you. --John (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for copyedit
One of my FAC reviewers at HMS Warrior (1860) has requested a thorough copyedit. I'd be grateful if you have the time to help me out. I still need to expand the sections on the restoration, so you can stop there until I get a chance to get to that later this week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, it'd be a pleasure. I am on holiday just now so I don't know how fast I will be able to do it. --John (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a first slash last night; I still think it might benefit from more but I have run out of time for now. --John (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Take as much time as you need.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're bored...
The next article that's aimed at FAC is an obscure bad boy abbot - Roger Norreis. This may have more questions from you as it's more specialized... if there are things you don't understand - feel free to query on the talk page. I actually love having non-specialists look these things over so I don't use too much jargon. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm never bored, but I'm always happy to extend myself into a new subject. I always find your articles very educational, as I snoozed in History at school and only paid attention to the 19th and 20th century bits. I will have a look in the next few days. --John (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad John, bad! No biscuit for you! Don't you know the 19th and 20th bits are the boring bits?? (I actually start snoozing about the 16th century unless it's a few subjects - I've always been fascinated with the Reformation and I have an interest in WWII European theatre and Nazi Germany, including the Holocaust. Otherwise, most "modern" history leaves me pretty bored. And I really can't find anything interesting in American history either - probably too much boring school year studies of it). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's the technology; I'm always more interested where there is interesting technology to look at. A more serious issue is the lack of proper sources as you go back in time; I noticed that on the recent articles we worked together on regarding the Middle Ages. It's very frustrating to me not to know basic facts like how many soldiers fought in a battle. However, as a result of my slacker tendencies in earlier life, it is now interesting for me to go back and find out more about these pivotal events that I only half know about. Your health, --John (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually originally intended to either study archaeology or early christian/roman history when I went to university, so to me the Middle Ages seems like a gold mine of sources. I actually enjoy teasing out the little tidbits from the bare sources rather than having the insane amounts of too much information you have with more modern history. But, as I tell my son, if we were all alike, the world would be a very boring place. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tell my daughter the same thing. It's true. --John (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm an existentialist, so what I tell people is that you can be anything you want, but you can't be everything you want. Eric   Corbett  14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I flirted with existentialism when I read Camus as a young man, but I have been most influenced by the philosophical empiricism and scepticism of David Hume and the warm humanism and rationalism of Robert Burns. I discovered them as a teenager and have never had reason to seriously challenge these beliefs. Good to see you, by the way; any interest in some copyediting? --John (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, copyediting what? I'm not one dimensional either, and Hume's "Truth springs from argument among friends" has been a bit of a guiding light for me. As for Burns, I'd love to do something with Tam o' Shanter, but I'm really not very good with poetry; if only I had Ottava Rima to help me. Eric   Corbett  14:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * HMS Warrior (1860), I've been working on it for quite a while and it just needs that last push to get it through FAR. There is also one outstanding question about sourcing that I don't think either of us can do anything about. Tam o' Shanter is a fascinating subject and our article hardly does it justice. I blame the arsehole who started it off. --John (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see I've lodged my foot firmly in my mouth, but of course I'll take a look at HMS Warrior. Eric   Corbett  15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, I consider myself lucky not to have got a civility block for saying that! I created that article one week after I registered my account and I think it was my very first new article. It certainly isn't my best work. Thanks for having a look at Warrior. Anything I can do in return? --John (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm about to put Malkin Tower up at FAC. It's a rather unusual article, as nobody knows where the house was or what it looked like. All that's known is that in 1612 it was the scene of the most famous witches coven in English history. It's a short little thing, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Eric   Corbett  15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to take a look. Should have time tonight. --John (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything I need to do on this or is it pretty much FAC ready? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me have one more look, Ealdgyth. --John (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it looks ok now for prose. I am not qualified to say anything about completeness. --John (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please review my block
Hi John. I'm a blocked editor looking for an unblock. Maybe you can help me out. I come to you semi-randomly I think, I'd noticed your edits here and there and you seemed to me, maybe in part from your user ID, someone who'd been editing a long time. Here's my situation. I edited for years, the vast majority on articles as opposed to policy and the administrative forums. I had a pitched debate now and then on some of the articles I worked on, but was never blocked, or warned, or "sanctioned" (in fact I didn't even know what that was for the longest time, I also didn't know what "Arbcom" was).

This is not my original Wikipedia account. What happened was my online privacy concerns were aroused in part when a fellow editor "investigated" me for WP:COI. He Googled me repetitively from clues in my user ID and edit history, posted my real name, etc. He demonstrated my indirect relationship to the subject but not any COI. It was an "aha!" moment without anything to "aha!" about. It was what is now called WP:OUTING. I later conscientiously abandoned my old Wikipedia ID and switched to a new: "Colton Cosmic."

A month or so thereafter I was no warn/no discussion/no diff indefinitely blocked by Timotheus Canens, the May before last. He tracked me there from a drama board and a button click at his Twinkle toolkit or whatever generated a link to WP:SOCK and I was banished forever. I was insulted, felt that when you call someone a sock you question his honesty. I was further ticked off that Timotheus deigned not to even discuss the matter (which of course is called for by WP:ADMIN). I handled my appeal poorly I'll admit, these are skilled blockers and I was a newbie blockee, plus the WP:AN/ANI crowd descended and started pushing me around. There were four or five of them. I have block-evaded via raw IP edits to try to get my account back. I've identified myself clearly in these edits, i.e. not "socked." I feel I was left no choice but to block evade. Bureaucrat Nihonjoe unblocked me providing a thoughtful explanation. This was then overturned by WP:AN/ANI, though there's no basis in policy for that. WP:APPEAL does not accord supremacy on unblocks to WP:AN/ANI. It was a calculated move by some administrative participant who watchlisted my talkpage: Nihonjoe unblocks, so within 15 minutes whoever it was tattled to WP:ANI, sits back with his popcorn, knowing full well that the lowest common denominator there was going to reblock.

What else do you need to know to decide about me? On one thing you may rely: I'm blocked for socking, but never did it. When (if?) you research my case do not take the accusations made at me as fact. Don't let suspicion override the need for evidence. I'm currently told my appeal avenues are WP:UTRS and WP:BASC. WP:UTRS is dangerous to one's personal online security because it fingerprints one's computer and IP and makes that available to potentially any Wikipedia administrator. My blocker Timotheus Canens sits on the three member panel that is WP:BASC and refuses to recuse, as well WP:BASC literally rejects more than 9 of 10 appeals. You don't need to get wrapped up in policy to recognize the fundamental unfairness of this. There has never been any evidence presented that I socked. Silktork demanded I hand over my previous account, so he could checkuser it to see what he could see, I said paraphrase "no, my online privacy and WP:CLEANSTART specifically says I don't have to do that." Arbcom turned me down without explanation, but also said it has "no monopoly on block appeals." So you're within your rights to unblock, but fair warning: I have amassed, wholly against my will, a good number of block-loving admins as my "fans," mainly the WP:AN/ANI crowd. They track me when they can, they watchlist my talkpage and react in minutes, and after all I've been through, it's fair of me to describe them as "haters." No evidence ever but my block persists and they'll enforce it. FAIR WARNING: If you help me, they will come at you, like they did at Nihonjoe.

John, please don't just reject me out of hand. You notice an edit of mine that troubles you, let's talk about it. Unblock me from my talkpage only, I'll answer any questions. I've edited nearly as long as you and I really feel I've received shabby treatment from a lot of arrogant admins who've contributed to Wikipedia a mere fraction of what I have. What will I do if unblocked? I always edited regular articles and I suppose I'd always will, but all this has called my attention to trying to streamline and improve policy, examples of what I'd like to do here. This is Colton Cosmic.


 * Thank you for the message. I will take a look when I can. I am on holiday so it might be a day or two before I can do it justice. --John (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * From an initial look, I do not think I will be able to help you. It looks like you have exhausted the patience of the community (or at least the subset thereof that hangs out at AN/I). I do feel a lot of sympathy for you. Here is what I suggest you do. Write off line a proper unblock rationale. It should focus on the reasons you were blocked, not on your feelings about those who blocked you. You need not reveal your earlier identity online, but it would help if you could let either me or whoever deals with your unblock know it. Trust begets trust sometimes. There was some suspicion that your previous account was under Arbcom sanction and that you had used the new one to avoid this. Anything you can do to allay such suspicion can only help your case. Finally you should talk about what you would like to do if unblocked, and whether/how it will be different from your previous editing interests. Because of the issues around this I would prefer you to continue this by email rather than here. There is no hurry; you aren't normally allowed more than one appeal every six months anyway. I am sorry if this sounds negative, but the Arbcom/ANI aspect of this mean sthat I could not unilaterally unblock you even though that might be my instinct. I'm a very lenient administrator who believes that people can change and that everybody deserves a second chance, but I am also a member of this community and have to abide by its norms just as you do. --John (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First thank you for looking. I know my case is incredibly long and and daunting to approach. I cannot email you because Spartaz at urging of Beeblebrox cut off my Wikipedia email function. You might be able to email me, I do not know.


 * You have hit on one thing particularly well, ANI is a subset of the community, but I would add that it has its own recognizable and distinct group behavior that has very little to do with the community. For example its usurping of an individual admin's authority to unblock, Nihonjoe's in my case and Inevercry's (who actually quit his adminship in frustration) more recently in the case of Eric Corbett. This is cabal behavior lacking only the element of secretiveness (they rather go for brazenness and a block party fun-time atmosphere). I pointed you to WP:APPEAL which says how unblocks are supposed to proceed, it's not like that.


 * Now you suggest I should do a nice unblock rationale focusing on my shortcomings that led to the block and taking care not to impugn my blocker. What in your view are "the reasons I was blocked?" I am blocked for sockpuppetry, but didn't do it. So personal honesty prevents me from the repent, reflect, and pledge to do better path to Wikiforgiveness on that score. If you are encouraging me to focus on some other shortcoming of mine, can you be more specific?


 * Oh, along the way I examined myself as an editor and found that I needed to improve my civility. I said that publicly and loudly for example if you look at my talkpage after Nihonjoe unblocked me. I said it in correspondence to Arbcom. But I'm not blocked for WP:CIV violation, I'm blocked for socking. How can I admit what I didn't do?


 * I'm now aware of Silktork's suspicion that I am some mysterious sanctioned user I call "Mr. X." I was bewildered at the time of my appeal that he handled, it was "secret evidence" so secret he didn't tell me about it (and thus of course I could not defend the point). He let slip publicly months later that that was his rationale. Mr. X was sanctioned. I was never sanctioned. Therefore I am not Mr. X. Silktork demanded I hand over my previous account, but handing over my previous account would not prove I am not Mr. X. What is the basis for the suspicion I am Mr. X? I am still in the dark on that.


 * You must admit there are fundamental issues of unfairness in these "norms," and that your respect for them perpetuates them. This is Colton Cosmic.


 * I see your problem. I wonder what I can best do to help you. I will continue to think about it and read up on your case. I haven't given up yet. --John (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if I may suggest, it is possible to focus on the basics. As an admin reviewing a block, it should not be required to read a miniseries of novelettes. That too should tell you there's something out of whack about my case. A reviewing admin should be able to consider A) block rationale, B) evidence to support block rationale. Oh certainly you may consider C) the whole of my edit history prior to the block, but it is also within your remit to consider D) the propriety of the blocking admin's action, which I found was off-limits to me as blockee.


 * I'll risk trying your patience by walking you through it. I'm well aware you'll proceed on your own analysis but here is how I see it. A) The block rationale is "sockpuppetry." Furthering the insult Timotheus' script pointed to "WP:ILLEGIT" subsection. He narrowed it down not farther than that, but we may be imposed on to browse the potpourri of "inappropriate uses" there. Do any apply? I say they do not, if you recall my very first edit I conscientiously said "Colton Cosmic" was a *sequential* account for privacy concerns, emphasizing I'd not return to the previous. What these violations are about is *alternate* accounts. But already we are wandering in an amorphous haze, which did Timotheus Canens refer to? He does not explain. B) So we move to his evidence: there is none. He provides no diff. Is there circumstantial evidence? He provides no articulation of it. C) Well, we may still go to my contribution history, does it reveal a vandal or total jerk? I say it does not. I created an article: Rain City Superhero Movement. I say it is of value. The popular news website Slate has linked it twice for example. I initiated a "3DO" third opinion community process to resolve a talkpage dispute, and politely thanked the 3DO though the result went against my viewpoint. I made some uncivil edits as well, nothing that bad really, but enough for me to recognize as my main flaw when I self-appraised myself as an editor later. I'll not recap these edits, you'll read my critics highlight and shout them as if they were all I ever typed. I will say the context was that I was a several years-long content editor who was exposed for the first time really to the alternate side of the project, the domain of the "administrative participants," or perhaps just the unsavory aspects of it. I realized there are these people whose main activity on the project was to seek blocks of others, I made a couple or three too-sharp criticisms, but the context is I was genuinely horrified by my first exposure to the drama boards and all that goes with them.


 * C, cont'd) Belaboring this part of my suggested analysis, the reviewing admin should not fall into the trap of defining me by a few or one uncivil edits. Months and months after blocking me, his hand forced apparently by Nihonjoe's unblock, Timotheus finally, for the first time, pointed to an objectionable edit of mine: the "provocateur" comment. I said "you're a provocateur who racks up warnings and blocks like notches in his belt or her purse strap, and the worst example of Jimbo Wales' fear that it was going to be Usenet. Have you ever created anything of value for the project at all?" If you look for the peak of my incivility, that was probably it, but it too has a context. The person at whom the comment was directed was voting on ANI to block his or her target of years, an editor and acquaintance of mine who a couple days before had plaintively beseeched the person to stop tracking his edits, stop needling him, stop insulting him. He said, providing convincing evidence, that this harassment behavior had gone on for more than two years. I was genuinely horrified. That is the context for my uncivil comment.


 * D) Now, finishing, I argue that Timotheus Canens's blocking of me, beyond the fundamental unfairness of no warning/no diff/no evidence, also does not comport with WP:ADMIN's text of "failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)." I was not warned, and he did not explain. To date he has not communicated to me, his attitude all along has been as if stomping on a bug that annoyed him.


 * What you can do best to help me John is unblock me, but certainly no offense if you don't and provide reasoning. I've laid out an analysis pattern above. Continue to think about it, please. Proceeding past analysis to the procedural side, you're supposed to communicate with the blocking admin. Now that I've been called it about 200 times, I would love to see Tim's response to "what is your evidence that he is a sock." I would love to participate in my own defense. I'd suppose it's a less flammable matter to unblock me from my talkpage, assuming anything I've said resonates with you. I do assure you that I will try utmost to be WP:CIV there, as well I'd consent to cease block evasion. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.170 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't just unblock you, as I say, because we would need to generate a consensus that doing so would be for the good of the community. What sort of work would you envision doing here, if unblocked? Can you point me to some really good content edits that you made before you were blocked? --John (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey John, forgive me for commenting here, read and remove (or copy-paste). I think someone you commmunicated with regarding me, or someone he or she communicated with has been on a block-Colton tear, adding my very nickname to abuse filters, and more. Here's some of my productive edits like you asked: (I authored that article, it's #1 Google result on the subject and linked twice by Slate).  (Initiated 3DO community process and dug up obscure image policy for everyone).  (Reader-friendlier substantial WP:CLEANSTART revision).  (Proposed adding standards to WP:SHORTCUT to disqualify transparent insults like WP:DIVA and WP:DICK). Etc. etc. I have a lot to offer. I am not blocked by consensus, but if you truly must have it to reinstate me, try Dispute Resolution Noticeboard  or Jimbo's talkpage, or anyywhere except WP:AN/ANI. Please type in there somewhere "he claims he never socked." This is C0lt0n C0smic.
 * Interesting. Let me think about it some more and examine your diffs. --John (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I am taking so long. It's because I am busy at work and yours is a complex and delicate case. I am still thinking about it. --John (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry to keep you waiting so long. As you have repeatedly nudged me, it is obvious that you are in a hurry for a resolution. I regret that I will not be able to help you; I have a family, a job and I am in the middle of moving house. While I am philosophically in favour of leniency and second chances on Wikipedia, I do not see what I can do in my current circumstances to help you to appeal your de facto ban which was endorsed by a consensus at AN/I. I suggest you email Arbcom and lay out the details of your appeal. If you do so you may use my name and say I am sympathetic to your being unblocked and given a second chance. I am sorry once again that I cannot do more for you at this time. All the best, --John (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Scotire
I'm afraid User:Scotire has come out of their block and re-commenced the same pattern of advocacy editing ( and ). Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely disappointed. I hate blocking well-meaning people. Thanks for letting me know, --John (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a shame their energies can't be channelled in a more consistently constructive way but they really seem not to understand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude, but you are probably unaware that this user [ persistently blanks his user_talk] without any kind of archiving, and in one case he . IMHO the block is a determined, although indirect, consequence of this habit. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blanking one's user page is specifically allowed by policy so that did not factor into the block. I will say that the next block is likely to be indefinite. --John (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, there is nothing against policy with it. But IMHO it shows an WP:IDONTHEARTHAT pattern. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

He's back, having learned nothing: Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I am sorry for all the trouble. I wish he could have learned. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. It makes me sad but he's just not getting it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, please note this user is also contributing in a similarly manner on Commons - where he has been continually editing throughout the blocks you imposed here. Hasn't received any blocks there yet, but there is an AN thread there. I will give you fuller details in morning but for now I'll quote from his Commons user talk: "I have been blocked from using wikipedia because I said that Cullen is in Banffshire. This is my protest, because as you all well know that Cullen is in Banffshire. I will contact the Banffshire Newspapers and papers in the United Kingdom about this matter. I will also contact the Members of Parliament especially the Member of Parliament who represents Banffshire. I will contact the Lord Lieutenant of Banffshire about this matter. I will contact the Banffshire Community Councils to notify them of Wikimedia's actions. I will contact the Members on the Moray Council who were voted in by residents in Banffshire. Scotire (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" Sound like fun to me :)--Nilfanion (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK fuller info about Commons. Thread on the AN (here), was started due to revert warring and accusations of bad faith.
 * Edit practices on Commons have included:
 * Stripping council area info (Moray) and replacing with Banffshire, from headers (using same format as was used here).
 * Stripping council area categories, and replacing with Banffshire.
 * Creating new categories using Banffshire, incorrectly, as disambiguator.
 * Creating pointless cats like commons:Category:Telephone booths in Banffshire.
 * These all mirror practices on WP. Point 3 is subject of a CFD, when that closes I will rectify it.
 * On Commons, adding Category:Banffshire is harmless enough, and he appears to have taken on board feedback to not strip council area info. There are a number of errors with his localisation, but the error rate isn't appalling (GeographBot was worse). If he stops with the POV pushing, a Commons block isn't justified.
 * One positive about this, is that good behaviour there, and willingness to work within the existing Commons structure (which mirrors practice on WP) could justify an unblock here.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly thanks to John for dealing with this issue so effectively. Secondly, thanks also to Nilfanion for this update re Commons. I had a quick look there and things seem to be improving for now at least. However, my concern about Scotire is not simply obsessive POV, its that there is ample evidence of other issues - here in a sample edit, there is capital 'C' in civil, the syntax in the infobox gets mangled and a perfectly reasonable distance indicator is lost (doesn't like metric?). Here, after the usual capitalised amendment to the lead we get a bold wording for no good reason. There are lots of examples of partial sentences being added, a lack of regard for normal rules of capitalisation, indifference to wiki mark up etc. As I mentioned before, this saga is as much a case of WP:COMPETENCE as it is of POV. Ben   Mac  Dui  17:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, that's what they pay me the big bucks for! I've looked at the user's Commons talk page and it certainly makes interesting reading. I'm thankful I am not an admin over there. I agree that competence is an issue here. Let me know if anything develops over there as I don't visit Commons very much. --John (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I trust you glanced at the history of his Commons talk page, not just the diatribes he has chosen to remain visible. Issues with his competence on Commons are legion, and cleaning up after him will take a lot of effort. I might be an admin there, but I'm too involved to whack him with a Commons block (as much as I'd like to!).
 * I'll advise if the situation on Commons changes - for good or bad.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did indeed. Apostrophe misuse is a good predictor of someone with issues and the overall tenor of his edits is very eccentric. What a shame as this editor has energy and clearly wants to help. Thank you for saying you would update me. --John (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567418241 your edit] to Laird may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A laird  is a member of the Scottish gentry, who bears the designation ''Laird of
 * Thanks a lot Bracketbot, I appreciate your punctiliousness. --John (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Good job
You make a good job on RfA with your constant opposes to candidates who make more socializing than actual work. Unfortunately you did not comment my RfA (talk) in any way, but I’ll appreciate any your comment in any other place. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --John (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you help me with my new essay WP:Voting for busy beavers, please? I think more Wikipedians have to take part in elections and RfCs, but they need instructions how to conserve their valuable mental resources. I know, my English is awkward. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. --John (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn
You blocked the user for NFC violations however their only edit was with a rather crude summary, and I received a nasty email which was almost all personal attacks and insults. If you wish I can forward it to you. However I really think the user in question needs to have their attitude adjusted or they should probably no longer edit. Werieth (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As the user in question says we cannot legislate for people's attitudes. We can only see whether they are capable of following policy. If they can do that and they want to edit here, that is fine with me. The email issue is more concerning. Could you forward it to me via email? --John (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Check your email. Werieth (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I will take it up by email. --John (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * EE has apologised for the silly email and assured me he will stay away from you in the future. It might be wise for you to stay away from him too. Please let me know if there are any further problems and I will deal with them. Thank you for the communication. --John (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! FAC
I was wondering if I have addressed your concerns for this FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My objections were on prose, but I see a huge argument at the review page about scope. I'll need to look it over and think some more. --John (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the FAC has now been archived. I think that is for the best. I will try to contribute to the renom. --John (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit/comment request
I know you are a busy man, but if you can find the time I would greatly appreciate a few edits/comments at Ringo Starr, currently at FAC. Cheers! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take a look and comment there in 24 hours or less. --John (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2
Since you voiced an opinion at FAC1, I am notifying you of Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --John (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

tête

 * [[File:FR-CA-tête.oga]]

Hello, you hear [taɪ̯t] or [tʌɪ̯t] ? 198.105.98.253 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear [taɪ̯t]. Why? --John (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's pronounced [taɪ̯t] in Quebec French. 198.105.101.59 (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never been, but I'll bear that in mind if I ever go. Thanks for sharing this knowledge. Was there any special reason you brought this to me? --John (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I want to know that you hear [taɪ̯t] or [tʌɪ̯t]. 198.105.100.45 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Change to Spontaneous Human Combustion
Hi John, it's my first wikipedia edit so I'm happy to get any feedback or advice, I did put in the reference to my change which came from "The Daily Mail" which I will gladly admit is not the most reliable of publications. However in this case, for a change, they did include at least the suggestion of explanations other than an unproven, medically unexplained and scientifically irreproducible phenomena, "The Times of India" failed in this case. I don't see why we wouldn't include suggested alternative explanations especially when talking about questionable science like Spontaneous Human Combustion. Nuclearfirecracker (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. We would need a reliable source to include this. As you observe, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for anything but its own opinions. If you could find a reliable source we could include it. --John (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Proxying
Please don't do this again. I don't know exactly what the source of this communication from Colton Cosmic was, but I have been putting effort into getting his block evasion to stop. Aiding him by posting his material for him doesn't help.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I like on my own talk page, thanks very much. --John (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What's your definition of "proxying" Kww? Eric   Corbett  11:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

tempête

 * [[File:FR-Tempête (Gaspésie).ogg]]

You hear [tãpeɪ̯t] or [tãpaɪ̯t] ? 198.105.112.58 (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear [tãpaɪ̯t].--John (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Outside help needed (IMO)
Hi John, I was wondering, off my own bat, there is a dicussion going on at IMOS about clarity for the different periods of Irish history and how it could be linked. As I know you are quite fimilar with ovelinking and linking I was hoping maybe as a new pair of eyes you would see any faults or the like. If you could bud, thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take a look, either today or tomorrow. --John (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have commented. --John (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that bud. Murry1975 (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

hiver

 * [[File:fr-hiver-fr CA.ogg]]

You hear [ivɛːʁ] or [ivaɛ̯ʁ] ? 198.105.114.41 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Non, mais ça suffit pour moi, je suis désolé. --John (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * D'accord, désolé ! 198.105.115.85 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * De rien; pour l'instant je n'ai pas envie de faire ça. Peut-être un peux plus tard. --John (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Je pense que c'est [ivaɛ̯ʁ]. 198.105.115.85 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

HMS Warrior FAC
I appreciate your work on the article, but I just saw a delegate's comment that he didn't see a clear consensus to promote, so I'm hoping that you might be willing to formally support, if only on the prose, so we can put this puppy to bed after all this work. If not, then I'd hope that you could identify any remaining issues that should be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've commented there and offered a bolded support; I have to say that if I was the delegate I might slightly discount the support of someone with 113 edits to the article. I am now neck-and-neck with you as lead editor of the article! Thank you for inviting me to get involved; it has to count as one of the most interesting "copyedits" I have done. --John (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to to be able to give you an opportunity to do something a little outside your normal "thing"! Seriously, thanks for the help, and don't forget that Russian battleship Potemkin is in the queue for my next solo FAC if you want a similar project to work on ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll put it on my list, with the proviso that as I mentioned I am about to move house so I will be at a lower level of activity and will be without my books for a week or two. Sucks, but there you go. --John (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My sympathies! While your additional material is useful, I'm more interested in a copyedit whenever you're not exhausted from the pack/move/unpack cycle. While my move was a single long and tiresome day itself, it took me a week or more to get all my books sorted out. And I wasn't trying to move a whole house.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help any time. Thanks again. --John (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

99.251.120.60
Take away his talk page access, please.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 04:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --John (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Edinburgh Skeptics
Thanks for adding the Secularism in Scotland category to the page. I had a note/link on the talk page that I am doing a rewrite of that page (currently being proofread and pending approval of a photo)and will add the category there too. Joolzzt (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --John (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thoroughbred...
And User talk:Ealdgyth. The information is sourced in the body - with usage, which means that the lead should reflect the body of the article. I love how I'm being accused of vandalism. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected; I'll have a word woth the IP. I am moving house so I won't be on as much in the next week or so. --John (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Scotire
A few FYIs regarding this user:
 * 1) Now blocked for 6 months on Commons (edit warring and personal attacks).
 * 2) An obvious related IP has been identified (Special:Contributions/59.167.60.9
 * 3) I have identified a copyvio on WP see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland

The last of these is particularly worrying, as I expect there are many more affecting many articles. Do you have any idea on the correct process to follow?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably all of his contributions will have to be removed. Lot of work. --John (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly agree its a lot of work! :( I don't think all the contribs are copvios, but between that and removal of the POV issues he introduced... sigh.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be easier to remove all his contributions than to search each one to see if it is a violation. What a nuisance. --John (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Shires of Scotland
I am attempting to follow the debate on the removal of categories referring to Scottish 'shires'. The term 'shire' is in common use in Scotland. I understand that the Post Office no longer uses that element in an address, and that Scottish Council areas are an administrative delineation, but shires do still exist. There are at least ten Scottish Westminster constituencies which are shires.

Who has made the decision to make these changes? And where can I find that recorded?Shipsview (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. --John (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

obsolescent / obsolete
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obsolescent gives a definition inconsistant with usage in warrior article, surely one must be incorrect ? 78.105.186.64 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary is user-generated and so it isn't the best source. All the same, "In the process of becoming obsolete, but not obsolete yet" seems fair to me. Like the Panavia Tornado in 2013, the Warrior could still do some useful work but was definitely no longer state-of-the-art. Or like Windows XP, as I said. --John (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Very interesting comparisons. I must agree that "obsolescent" is by no means a less clear or unduly verbose wording of "obsolete" - it means a different thing. I recall in particular the appendices to The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, which contained an exhaustive listing of the weapons used by both sides in 1982, and noted specifically that many weapon systems used by the British were either obsolete or obsolescent at the time.


 * The outstandingly fiery example of either one or the other, was the Sea Slug (missile). The version in use had a limited capability against ships, and the British tried to exploit this by approaching at night and attempting to fire at the Argentine defences of Port Stanley airfield from more than a dozen miles offshore.


 * The attempt was an utter failure, but the British fleet received a request to try again, from British ground forces who by this time were on high ground within sight of Stanley. Asked whether the request was because success was likely, the ground forces said no, absolutely not - the weapon should be used again purely because its ridiculous take-off sequence, involving multiple separate booster rockets spinning like a Catherine Wheel, was a grand display even from the British positions, and might have an equivalent effect on the morale of Argentineans who saw it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thank you. I have that book and I must reread it. --John (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this?
What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's rather surprising. I see the editor in question has self-reverted, which seems like the wise thing to do. --John (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning on Brad Pitt
Before you claim a WP:BLP exemption, please note "[w]hat counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Neither the BLP board or ANI have given any indication your actions are exempt from WP:3RR. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Before you come here giving me a "warning", please ensure you haven't just restored multiple instances of tabloid journalism to a BLP, in contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Shoah (film)
I've just spent a wet Sunday trying to improve Shoah (film) only to see a lot of it undone. I wonder if I could trouble you for your opinion whether the article was better before or after . I am a slow editor and reluctant to throw good time after bad, but if you think it was better before, I am prepared to have a go at defending my edits per BRD. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see good in both versions. It should be possible to strike a compromise over this material. --John (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

user: Y45ed
A couple of weeks ago you blocked user Y45ed for genre warring. Just wanted to let you know that he/she is at it again. ChakaKong<sup style="color:#0033FF;">Let's talk about it 01:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --John (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Question
You obviously don't have to answer this, but it would be a kindness if you're willing to, and would help me personally in getting a better picture of you as an editor: what's your class background? For instance, what's your profession, to what level were you educated and where, what were your parents or guardians professions, that sort of thing. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I decline to answer the "class" question, as I don't believe in class. George Orwell will explain the subtleties of the British class system to you if you can be bothered. Educationally I have a science degree from an ancient university, a post-graduate degree, and a qualification in teaching English. --John (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks very much. (Don't believe in class, hmmmm. That's OK, there are also people who don't believe in the Forth Bridge I suppose, although explaining why there are trains at North Queensferry station requires some mental gymnastics I would think.) Yes I agree Orwell is top-drawer on these things and I really should read him more thoroughly. Thanks again! Herostratus (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I meant was that I don't believe in class as a predictor of intelligence, workrate, values or anything else important. Obviously I realise that it exists. And the Orwell reference wasn't meant to sound snotty; there's a great essay about class that I haven't read since I was about 13 - do you know the one I mean? Oh, and there were trains at NQ for many years before the bridge was built; there was a ferry, dontcha know? --John (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No I didn't know (about the ferries). And the Orwell comment wasn't taken as snotty at all -- bringing Orwell into most any conversation improves it. I haven't read that much Orwell so I don't know the one you mean, but I've lately been at Chris Hitchens (how he'd hate that "Chris" but he's no longer a WP:BLP so the heck with him!) who very much wanted to be Orwell. I can't recommend the memoirs unless you're really into Hitch, but the essays are worthwhile if you skip judiciously. Anyway, I crafted a (very, sorry!) long request to you (the actual request is at the end), but it was edit conflicted by all this here, and maybe some doesn't exactly apply given your more detailed response, but I'm going to paste it in verbatim, since this is a talk page and not the Literary Gazette and I'm not inclined to do further copyediting. It's below. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

-- Here's why I asked. Sorry this is so long, but there's a lot to think about here. I was pondering the recent contretemps re People magazine and the New York Daily News and so on. I'm sure you're thoroughly tired of the subject and I don't want to pile on, and I'm not personally invested in the answers to those questions, but I am personally invested in User:Flyer22. As founder of WP:PAW, I need her, and was disheartened by this edit at Talk:Pedophilia where User:Flyer22 said "On second thought, I'm taking this article off my WP:Watchlist for now, and for the first time ever. I have too many other things, including stressful things with regard to Wikipedia, to have to worry about... Have a blast."

Among the many useful tasks User:Flyer22 performs here is watching and engaging on articles like Pedophilia and related articles. In a nutshell, we're contending with the sort of editor who wants include material such as "However, some researchers contend that sexual experience even at a very young age, if done with care and mutual consent, can be harmless or even healthy [cite] [cite [cite]". As you might imagine, these people can be well-versed in obscure literature on the subject and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, tireless, and of course careful to use language much more subtle that the example I give. Contending with this sort of thing is stressful and unpleasing for a number of reasons, and there're not many editors willing to do it who have the requisite learning, intellectual chops, and patience to do it well.

User:Flyer22's one, so you can see why her expressed retreat from that article due to "other things, including stressful things with regard to Wikipedia" troubled me and prompted me to look into that, and so I found this. In all candor, I have to say that that was a spectacularly bad edit. It's OK, we all make a lot of edits, and some of them are going to be bad edits. I know I make plenty of bad edits. The thing then is to move forward, be big enough to admit the mistake, and make corrections.

Drilling down into the situation, I found a great deal of contention re People and the New York Daily News. I didn't read everything in detail, but I see where you (understandably, we're only human) got your back up quite a bit. Argument here is often contentious and stressful and taking fixed positions comes naturally and can be functional, but consider. Your position seemed to me fairly idiosyncratic. As the author of Reliable sources checklist (check it out -- I'm a bit proud of it) I have thought about these things a little bit, and I'm not seeing your argument as the stronger, and certainly not incontrovertibly the stronger.

OK, so anyway, I guess we don't agree about the veracity of the New York Daily News and People, and you've been pretty vociferous about that -- "not on my watch" and so on. This would not be my concern, except for the collateral damage described above, which makes it my concern. So, wondering about that, I tried to form a picture in my head of just what's going on here. Let's drill down through this together.

The New York Daily News is a working man's paper. It's the kind of paper you'll find discarded on the subway, and maybe with grimy fingerprints at that. That's a data point, but in and of itself it's a minor point re reliability. It's a minor point because in my experience working people want the facts they read to be correct as much as anyone else. (People's pitched more to the lower middle class, but "the sort of person who reads People magazine" is also a construction that most people would "get".)

I realize you don't believe in class, but that also is pretty idiosyncratic, and I'm only going to allow you one idiosyncratic position today =). That social mileu and so forth influences our attitudes is pretty established, I'd say. I believe -- along with, I think, most everyone else who's thought about it -- that social class (along with many other things) influences our thinking, often in ways we're not aware of. In fact I'm confident of it.

Anyway, assuming that I (and essentially everyone else) is correct about that, what newspapers we read define us in class terms, to ourselves as well as others, just as do the clothes we wear, the pubs we frequent, and so on, I believe. A visceral aversion to publications of a different class follows from this, and in fact is rife in my experience. Everyone in my city understands which is the working-class paper and which the middle-class, and which one is proper for them, and from an early age. (FWIW they're about equally good, although no proper middle-class person will admit this.)

Anyway, in "our attitudes" I include "your attitudes" (as well as "my attitudes"), and there's the rub. The facts as I've reviewed them lead me to believe that your position is largely informed by a visceral aversion to the publications in question.

I can't prove any of this, could be wrong, and don't wish to debate this with you (I will if you want). Instead, I'd ask you take some time and just calmly consider this to yourself, within yourself, if you will. If I'm wrong, feel free to ignore me, blow me off, counterargue, or whatever pleases you (since it won't really matter). But if I'm right, you made an error in templating User:Flyer22. An understandable error, especially in the heat of the moment, but one that needs addressing.

The actual request
So, depending on the results of your contemplation of this matter, I'd like you to apologize to User:Flyer22 for the templating I mentioned earlier. Effusion is not required nor a complete reversal of your position re the publications in question, and of course you can't do it if you still think your edit was justified. However, if you could see your way free to do this, this would be a kindness, would be helpful to the project, and would speak well of your character and flexibility of mind, I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time and thought that you have put into this. I disagree with several of your premises. Here is the edit I warned her for. You will observe that as well as the People references which were disputed, she restores the New York Daily News ones, and one from The Sun. It is neither snobby nor visceral on my part to point out that these are unambiguously and undisputedly bad sources for a BLP, and this is what the warning was for. Whether her edit was intentionally disruptive or the result of an error, this is the sort of edit people are blocked for and as I stated below I believe I or any admin would have been justified in blocking her had she continued. As it was she made two reverts of non BLP-compliant material during a dispute with an admin, before running off to a drama board to complain. She has also repeatedly insulted me (I can't be bothered searching for diffs but there's a whole section on her talk page you can read) and misrepresented me and my motives. Again, whether this comes from malice or stupidity on her part is immaterial; she has definitely had all the apology she is going to get from me, because I regard adding or restoring tabloid smut and sleaze to Brad Pitt's article every bit as seriously as you regard controversial edits to the paedophilia page. I will back off from removing more People sources pending an RfC about this, but I will if anything be even less flexible and tolerant of unambiguously tabloid sources on BLPs as a result of this interaction. Once again, I really do appreciate the time and trouble you have put into this request but I decline it. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I hear you. Better to stick to your guns then issue an insincere apology, I guess. I can't agree with a lot of what you say and believe, but we're not going to change each other's minds probably, so that's that. I do see you're getting your head handed to you over at the RfC regarding People, which probably depresses you, but I've had my head handed to me on various issues and at the end of the day you have to accept that (or leave if you can't), and I hope you can do that. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's funny. I honestly don't see it like that. We are in cooperation, not competition and if the RfC ends up being a firm "proceed but with great caution" on the gossip stuff, that will be a result. I still intend to enforce BLPSOURCES but I will stick to more unambiguously shit sources in future when removing. --John (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

On sourcing and the yellow press
I have walked away from the wankfest that the AN/I discussion has become as I have better things to do and little time to do them in. I have a job, a family and am still recovering from moving house. I thought I would make a final comment on the whole People furore.


 * As a serious encyclopedia we can never use material from the tabloids/red tops/yellow press to source contentious information about living people. Full stop. You may like this, dislike it, or be indifferent to it, but that's what our policy says. If you don't like it, get another hobby. Charity shops are always looking for volunteers, and I hear Facebook is great fun. On Wikipedia we can't use tabloids like this. As always there will be a very few valid exceptions; Neil Kinnock has been mentioned, Freddy Starr's non-hamster eating escapade, the GOTCHA in the Falklands War as it related to certain living people. That's policy, and breaking it will get you blocked. I will still enforce this, by warnings and blocks if necessary.


 * It seems there is a sizable body of people who think People is a good source for BLP material. It's a gossip magazine for goodness sake! Garbage like this and Hello are not good sources, and I believe should never be used on BLPs, but I concede they are not quite "tabloids" so strictly fall outside of current policy. We seemingly need an RfC to properly determine whether we want to use garbage sources like these on BLPs, which astonishes me but so be it. It seems to be like arguing over just how runny faeces has to be before we consider it to be diarrhea, but ok.


 * Arguing for using poor sources on an article about a living human being seems so counter to our mission that I find it extremely hard to assume good faith on the part of those who have done so. Nevertheless I apologise if I have hurt anyone's feelings during this episode. It should be possible to disagree without getting upset when one is wrong. "Warning" another editor you are in a dispute with, after you have just restored non-compliant sources to a BLP, is the very definition of dumbassery, but I suppose that editor is not always a dumbass. We all do silly things sometimes. Edit-warring to restore bad sources can never be regarded as "best practice"; a guideline should be that if sources are challenged, better ones should be found. Where they cannot be, the article should be edited to reflect this. I have faith that the Brad Pitt article will be improved as a result of my intervention, which is something good. Once again, our Featured Article process is made to look extremely silly, by promoting an article which was partly based on poor sources.

So it goes. Onwards and upwards. --John (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll excuse me if I call this a load of self-serving dumbassery (not that you're always a dumbass)? -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll excuse you, Neil, the well-meaning human who edits using your account. But I don't think that's a helpful comment, and I have come to an opinion about your understanding of our mission which the shallowness of your comment only reinforces. I'd love to revise that opinion upwards. Tell me, do you ever do anything useful here, like article writing and the like? --John (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look through my 40,000+ edits and judge for yourself. And really, why should I care about your opinion on this matter as you've not put forth one argument supporting your contentions. Explain why you think People is a garbage source (People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source doesn't cut it) or point to previous discussions involving this and then I'll take your opinion as having value. Finally, I have to laugh at the statement that your intervention will improve the Pitt article. No, it was Flyer22 raising the matter at various boards and <font color="#7F007F">Ritchie333's excellent work that will improve the article. I guess you can take some of the credit for getting them to do the work you should have done. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't care about my opinions, why are you posting about it on my talk page? --John (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care as long as you stick to "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source". But this issue isn't going to go away so I'm hoping you'll have some good insights and arguments in the forthcoming discussion. As I stated above, as soon as you start doing that, your opinion matters to me. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I say "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source"? A diff will be fine. If you can show where you think I said that, maybe we can have a conversation. --John (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was paraphrasing. If your argument has more depth than "People is a garbage source because I say so" then I apologize but I haven't seen any evidence of that except for one total red herring. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  13:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate the apology, and your admission that you were paraphrasing. It so happens that your paraphrase is inaccurate. I will make a comment at the BLPN discussion and give more detail about why I don't think we should use People as a source, as it seems you are not the only user to whom this is not obvious. Talking of red herrings, mischaracterising another user's statement and then demanding that he justify it is probably in there, or is it a strawman argument? It certainly isn't likely to advance debate to argue this way, do you think? --John (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't accept that apology yet. My observations were correct. Up until now, it's been "People is a garbage source because I say so". I have not mischaracterized your past arguments. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, if you think you know my intentions and my meaning better than I do myself, once again I don't know why you bother to post here. If you're trying to come across as more competent than when you "warned" me after you had restored a tabloid source to a BLP, I have to say it isn't (yet) working. --John (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good. I appreciate that we can count on you to participate in the upcoming community discussion on using People in BLPs. I am seriously hoping it will wind up we don't use it for anything on Wikipedia, but its supporters, outside of NeilN, appear worried that the discussion will draw that conclusion and are trying to derail the RFC before it starts to prevent that, or so it seems, which makes it easier to understand your attitude during this. NeilN has set up a very general BLP, and I think we have a good community for making a decision. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I assure you I will comment there in the next 24 hours. --John (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I now understand completely why you acted the way you did (not forgiving the dumbass remark). You were left with nothing else to do, and clearly People supporters have no intention of going with consensus and will interfere with deciding it. What else could you do? --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)) --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I have now commented. Based on the exchange above, my "dumbass" remark was thoroughly warranted, but I have apologised anyway because it is not my policy to comment on editors and their abilities or lack thereof. --John (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and...
Greetings John. From one "bear of very little brain" to another, and appealing to you in your role as WikiGnome rather than admin., I'd be grateful for clarification re your edit summary here. It's not that I disagree with your edit, it's just that I'm a bit disconcerted 'cos I would have accepted, by default and AGF, both the Mail and the Standard as "reliable" sources – not, I hasten to add 'cos I consider them as such... – but because they are major players in the mass media. I'd be grateful for some guidance – no hurry – as to where I can find out a bit more about this, i.e., is there an "official" list around here that I can check out? Is it tacit? Consensus? Instinctive (as in gut feeling)? Cheers (and, in yr dual role as admin. & WikiGnome, thnks for being out there). --Technopat (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the query. WP:BLPSOURCES prevents us using tabloids like the Mail and the Standard as sources on living people. There may be individual exceptions to this, but generally if something is worth recording on Wikipedia, a better source will have reported on it. --John (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reply. Sticking to British examples, your link leads to tabloid journalism – an article which is, BTW, pretty lousily referenced – which mentions "the former News of the World" as well as "The Sun, the Daily Star, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Record and the Daily Sport," (red tops) "and distinguishes them from the Daily Express and Daily Mail". But no mention of the Standard. Again, I'm not challenging your call but, at the risk of converting this into a forum, I'm simply looking for solid arguments with which to hone my own judgement. In other words, while we are all likely to "know" (instinctively?) what can/should be considered reliable sources in our own culture/language, failing some sort of politically incorrect/unviable "official Wikipedia blacklist of generally unreliable sources", it's not so easy when checking references to English-language publications from other continents. A case in point is the proliferation of articles related to Indian politicians, Bollywood films, etc., which raise sourcing issues. (These examples are by no means isolated cases.) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're not the first to be confused by this link to a lousy and unreferenced article. Numerous discussions have firmly established that the Mail and Standard are tabloids, which accords with one's knowledge of them. --John (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks. What happened to asking me about these edits here, or even looking at them in detail, before raising it for central discussion? --John (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, John, I thought that there had been sufficient discussion before on these issues to bypass that step, but if you feel it would be fruitful, I'll remove the AN topic and talk to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that, as I don't think the edits I made today resemble the ones being discussed at AN/I last week, as they do not involve links to the People but sources which are unambiguously tabloid in nature. --John (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from AN. Just an aside to lighten things up. Right after I posted at AN, I notified you. At least I thought I had. In fact, I notified myself. If another editor hadn't seen it, I would probably have been taken to task for failing to notify you. First time I've ever done that.


 * I'm aware of the fact that you are not removing People sources, but you are doing the same thing you did before, just with other sources. Am I wrong that you are doing so purely based on the sources themselves without regard to the material that is being sourced? If we're going to have a bright-line rule that, as an example, The Daily Mirror can never be used as a source in BLP articles, no matter what it is sourced for, then I think we need to change BLP policy to reflect that. The same would be true for the other sources. It would be like a BLP blacklist in addition to the already-existing spam blacklist. If that's what you want, then you should propose that as a policy change. Otherwise, unless you're doing this selectively, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That is funny, and no harm done. I think I am being pretty selective; look at this as an example of some of the unsuitable material I've removed. I've been removing controversial material sourced only to tabloids for a good while now, and it's never been seriously questioned before. The idea of a BLP blacklist isn't a bad one; it might put some of the confusion to rest. --John (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Was thinking about the AN thread before Bbb23 reverted it.) The handful of removals I looked at looked good but they do resemble the previous ones as far as the edit summaries go. I think it would save everyone some aggravation if John included an explicit reference to wp:blpsources in the summary so that editors not familar with the background have a place to start. NE Ent 22:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * List of unreliable sources would be good but I think it should be manual not techie like the spam-blacklist. Do ya'll think these periodicals should be allowed as secondary sources? NE Ent 23:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've ordered two dozen hot wings and a couple of pitchers of beers for you all. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some OJ for the boring California boy, please, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @John, let's assume for the moment that your changes (there were a lot of them) to the Mandelson article were justifiable. What about this edit to Kate Winslet? Specifically, the material you removed about her parents and quotes from her about them and about her early life? That doesn't seem controversial to me. It's not the most innocuous material I can imagine (e.g., "I like volleyball") but nor is it like accusations of homosexuality. As a second point, if you're going to remove things selectively, then you should change your edit summary to something like "removing controversial material cited to low-quality sources", at least for the part where you remove the material in addition to the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your advice and make explicit reference to BLPSOURCES when making future removals wearing an admin hat. BLP conformance is not a content dispute. I'm going to look at the Winslet material and see if I agree with you. --John (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked again at the Winslet article. Alongside that seemingly innocuous stuff there is a reference to her splitting up with a boyfriend and some story about missing a plane on 9/11. Either of these could be regarded as controversial so I have deleted them again (another user had restored them). I regard this as an admin action, so I will have no qualms about using the block button should it be necessary; I hope of course that it won't. --John (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * John, if you start using the block button in these disputes, I think you're going to find yourself in trouble. Frankly, one of the reasons I believe you avoided explicit sanctions in the Pitt discussion was because you had not used your tools. The "worst" you did was the only warning against Flyer, which most people thought was unwarranted but many didn't think required any action against you. Addressing the Winslet article again, if you agree that some of the material was innocuous, why did you again remove all of the material? As for the 9/11 material, controversy is a spectrum. I think most would agree that including material with criminal accusations to be controversial. At the other end, most would agree that including material that says someone likes to go to football games as not controversial (not notable either in my view, but this is for illustration only). The 9/11 material falls somewhere in between. I personally agree with you that the 9/11 material should be sourced to higher quality sources, but that doesn't necessarily justify edit warring over it (either because you claim the BLP exemption or because you claim you are acting in your administrative capacity). It's just not controversial enough. Further, it really looks like you are acting like a crusader here and making broad unilateral decisions that don't necessarily have the community's consensus. Rather than "cleaning up" all these BLP articles, why don't you start a proposal at the Pump to declare that certain sources are never acceptable in BLP articles? Whether the implementation of such a proposal is technical (like the blacklist) or not (as NE Ent suggests), that can be worked out if there's a consensus. The way you're going about this is just going to lead to more disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, I do value it. I don't think we need to have another discussion though because we already have WP:BLPSOURCES, which is a strong and long-standing consensus not to use these sources in this way. Those who think it is ok to use the Daily Mail and the like would need to have a discussion to change things in their direction. --John (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your block of User:LudicrousTripe
I have unblocked this user. You were clearly in a content dispute with them at the time you made the block, and so are considered WP:INVOLVED. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * John, I agree with you on the revert of that Armani tripe, and I agree with Beeblebrox on the unblock. Best to go through proper channels... Drmies (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have so many damned channels on my cable TV box that I accidentally watched the LSU-Auburn game for a moment. Fortunately, I switched as soon as I realized (sort of) what it was.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty retarded. This is a "content dispute"? Seriously? --John (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were in a content dispute, in that you were disagreeing with another user about the quality of a source and had been reverting them. That sounds exactly like a content dispute to me and that your reaction to having that pointed out to you is "that's retarded" is very troubling. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, I am glad you are troubled by that, because you are wrong and should be troubled so you can see how wrong you are. Unblocking a user who was adding conspiracy theories to our article on a former PM, sourced to the Daily Mail, then characterising it as a "content dispute", is absolutely the definition of retarded. You need to check yourself. --John (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beeblebrox and with Drmies, John, as to the procedural issues. And stop using the word "retarded". It is insulting to Beeblebrox and it is insulting to those people who are developmentally challenged. It's an outdated colloquial word that is considered offensive. If you disagree with Beeblebrox, fine, but don't call him or anyone else retarded.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't call him retarded, Bbb23. I called his action retarded, which it was. It just means "stupid", get over yourself. --John (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "retarded", but the dispute was, in the context, about the inappropriate use of a tabloid as a source. That is not a content dispute. Please everyone, calm down. This is only Wikipedia! --Epipelagic (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless Beeb contends that the Mail is not a tabloid. Do you? --John (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the Mail is a tabloid. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never seen it seriously characterised otherwise. --John (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is in a "tabloid format" as are very many British newspapers - almost all if you count the "Berliner format". It has gossip marked as such -- as do a great many major newspapers.   But it is not the "National Enquirer" or "Weekly World News" and does not fall under any RS or BLP restrictions as a "tabloid."   Kindly read many past discussions thereon on the proper noticeboards.  And removing it from sundry BLPs with a claim that it is barred as a "tabloid" is WP:POINT behavior.  Cheers -- but I fear you "loss" at calling People magazine a "tabloid" should not then lead down this path at all.  And, for the record, Bbb23 is NOT "PRETTY RETARDED" and you should have excised that sort of comment as a matter of common decency. Collect (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem deeply, deeply confused. Step away from the computer and have a cup of tea? --John (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

yaan
Administrators%27_noticeboard NE Ent 18:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Incidentally, what does "yaan" mean? --John (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "yet another administrator noticeboard" see yacc. NE Ent 18:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should call it "yawn" ("yet another wacky noticeboard").--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. --John (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LIKE(Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)).

Overlinking
I notice you've been systematically removing links to Wales (and elsewhere) from articles. I'll raise my concerns at WT:WALES - you might like to respond there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. WP:OVERLINK has been around for a good while now, and I have made many thousands of such edits over the years without anybody previously having any "concerns"; these links are useless and distracting and removing them is widely seen as uncontroversial. --John (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary
I'm sure you got pinged, but just in case, I mentioned you at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your courtesy and punctiliousness. I have commented there. --John (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

‎Like?:
As a notre, his ANI report specifically mentions that he personnally deemed consensus and that he did so by seeking vote counting which is explicitly against CONSENSUS in WP.Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I wont edit the article for a while (other than the need for a tag, which generates more discussion and ought not to be removed. I think youll agree?). Neverthel;ess, can you make sure that the user discusses and seeks consensus before edit warring. As you can see I have asked questions and he ahasnt answered why he wants X and doesnt want y. I dont know what more to do to seek consensus.
 * Well its not too lovely across the Irish sea ;)(Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)).
 * I just saw the page (have not edited it), and the talk page where the said user has only written "Tthe OP said there were too many flags and "excessive reactions". And we seem to still be talking about too many reactions" in response to my questions, has not explained his, has accused me at ANI and saying that I used my version, while he admitted as such thst he used his personal opinion to deem consensus (when he was an involved editor). Yet he has again removed the tag(Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)).

Catholic High School for Boys (Little Rock, Arkansas)
Hi there. Would it be possible to either reprotect Catholic High School for Boys (Little Rock, Arkansas) or block the IP who has persisted in adding unsourced material on it? You protected it a few weeks ago, but the protection expired and the IP came right back and started up the edit war again.

Thanks for taking a look. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a warning. Can you tell me if it happens again? --John (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

JohnERaker picture
Hi John. I am a relative newbie to Wikipedia and I really don't understand all the copyright policies. But the picture you posted, You stated a fair use policy to use it. But shouldn't that picture be in the public domain due to the fact that it was taken before 1923. WP:PD I was wondering because I have been adding pictures of California's congressmen to their respective congressional district pages for instance California's 2nd congressional district and I have been told that non-free images may not be used in tables. I'm sorry for any inconvenience and any stupidity on my part. Thank you in advance.--Jamo58 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Let me think. --John (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He lived until 1926 so I suppose I was just playing safe. --John (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI
FYI (at the bottom), and best regards. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. 9:32 AM, EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.176.212 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote and I am sorry you were not pleased with the way you were treated here. --John (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Not canvassing, GMTA
See here:  98.117.75.177 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I accept you are not canvassing. I may comment there. --John (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the whole concept of canvahhhhssing is...screwed. Wiki thinking, not real world behavior.  You see people making these awkward "would you mind looking at this" comments or not disclosing their POV or the like (or back channel crap).  I'd rather let it all flop in the wind.  I don't see why I shouldn't send a message to someone that sparked an agreement with me.  For one thing, it's engagement.  ;=) [wide-nosed wink]  98.117.75.177 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine; see WP:CANVASS for what actually constitutes canvassing here. A neutrally worded nudge to someone about a discussion you are having is fine. If you messaged dozens of people to tell them to come and argue in a particular direction, that would be canvassing. You're fine on that score. On the little Bohr diagrams, I dislike them because I think they overemphasize an oversimplified and outdated pictorial way to think of an atom. Beyond about sodium you can't use them to explain the properties of materials or their chemistry, so they should not be in the infoboxes. They would be fine in the body of the articles for the lighter elements, where they are useful. Carbon's should be tetrahedral, of course. --John (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Body, body, body. I'm totally fine with a graphic to help some understanding. and it can be cartoony and simplified. (for lighter elements where effective neutral charge is a good insight). But much better handled as at fluorine (atomic structure section), where it supports a discussion and is clear that we are describing a point from discussion rather than drawing the orbitals. and definitely not taking up precious real estate in the infobox.

Here is another couple tries (didn't quite come off, but you can see we are trying to make it easier to get insights about periodic table location)





71.127.137.171 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

P.s. that's nice that I didn't step on the policy too bad, but if it's a choice between being honest and stepping on Wiki's tangle of rules...that's a no brainer. :-O [open mouthed smiley]


 * As regards your proposed graphic, I like it but would prefer "period" and "group" to "row" and "column". --John (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad refs
Hi John,

Re the thing-you-just-removed from here about a politician; I just wanted to make you aware that the sources were not what they seemed; see. 88.104.19.237 (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. --John (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan, sock-puppet, etc
Hi John,

I get the impression you're a pretty experienced wikipedian, so I feel it's likely you can be arsed to read this unfortunately long post from me.

RE. "Gilligan had engaged in sockpuppeting. Guardian journalist Dave Hill wrote about the allegations"

I hope I can speak frankly;

Regarding that particular dispute - personally, I came across it purely by chance, and have no vested interest in the topic. I used to edit wikipedia a lot (>100,000 edits), but stopped years ago; I was taking a peek, and scanned 'recentchanges', and edit a few, just for lulz really (but, in the best interests of the project etc; I hope you understand me!)

If necessary, I can prove my prior account via Arbcom, and show I'm totally unconnected to the subject of the article - indeed, I'd never heard of him, and still don't really know his background or politics.

To me, that doesn't matter; I saw a negative claim on a BLP, I looked into it, and IMHO it's totally inappropriate to include it in a BLP, because it's not actually been recorded by newspapers or similar; it's grabbing a tabloidesque 'fact' from a blog site, and trying to make a big deal of it.

At the moment, it seems like it is 'me' versus, with a couple of people chipping in.

I'd like to resolve it; I guess that means consensus on the talk page. At the moment, with just me v U, that seems unlikely,

So my question is - how do we resolve it? More people would help, of course; years ago, I might've tried MEDCAB but I note that seems to be defunct. So - should I list at "Dispute resolution noticeboard"? Or what?

On the one hand, I feel it's not worth pursuing - it's not anything I *personally* care about; yet I have strong feelings about the general treatment of people in news/internet, and the need for the Wikipedia project to remain stoic and neutral.

IDK... maybe it's not worth all the trouble, but... is there any route to resolution that won't take years?

Best wishes, 88.104.25.210 (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My IP may change again but, no matter, I'll check back here
 * My take on that would be that there is no way we could use the original wording, and probably no way we could mention the matter at all, for the reasons you describe. The sole user who wishes to add the information may have a COI but has declined to discuss this with me. As an admin, I have a duty to enforce BLP. Should admin action become necessary I would probably take it to WP:AN for review, especially as I see I have edited the article before. I don't think it will go down this path, although I have occasionally been wrong before. If you want to get more people involved in the discussion, you could raise it at WP:BLPN, or request an RfC. --John (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have posted reasons for retaining the sockpuppeting allegation in the entry's talk page. I need to make important corrections and observations here. Firstly, the IP editor has made a serious omission in quoting the original text, which in fact was: 'In October 2008, it was reported that Gilligan had engaged in sockpuppeting. Guardian journalist Dave Hill wrote about the allegations. Gilligan stated that one of the alleged sockpuppets was his "partner".' As you will know, in Wikipedia there is a huge difference between noting what has been said ("... it was reported that...") and stating an allegation as fact ("Gilligan had engaged in..."). The omission of the qualifying phrase changes its nature. I'm sure this doesn't need explaining further. Secondly, I am not the "sole user who wishes to add the information"; you can see from the discussion that the IP editor argued for its removal, but FreeRangeFrog disagreed. Thirdly, it is wrong to say I "may have a COI but has declined to discuss this with me"; a COI has never been mentioned for me to decline to discuss it. For the record, there is no COI. Finally, I note that there are at least two possible BLP violations at the top of the Gilligan talk page in the press coverage section; I considered removing them, but decided not to in case this is misinterpreted. UsamahWard (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't use this wording for various reasons. One of them is sourcing. The scare quotes are another. Why is it important to you that we put quote marks around the word partner? The use of qualifying phrases does not falsify our need to follow WP:BLP at all times. You have declined to answer why this is so important to you, hence my suspicion that you may have a COI in the matter. It is not normal editing behaviour. Finally, I shall take a look at the rest of the talk page and see if there is anything else that needs to be removed. --John (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why call the quotes 'scare quotes'? They could easily be omitted without changing the meaning. I've checked the history and can see they were in the first insertion of this matter on 20 Jan 2009; I assume it was because it was quoting Gilligan's own words. Finally, you say "You have declined to answer why this is so important to you", a question which has never been asked of me. For the record, I am keen to see balanced coverage in an article that I have kept on my watchlist since an SPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Craig142) tried to remove material. UsamahWard (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I made no "serious omission", I simply abbreviated it, to let John know which subject I was talking about - and gave a diff showing exactly what it was about.
 * FRF has not disagreed. He mentioned another possible source, but even in doing so, doubted its validity. 88.104.19.122 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Guys, it might be easier just to discuss this in article talk. I will close this off by reminding you that what we would need in order to include this material would be a solid consensus in article talk that it deserves a mention, something I am not (yet) seeing. --John (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> 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 against a main stream, - repeating, you are an awesome Wikipedian (1 November 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 279th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --John (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on varieties of English
Please don't vandalize articles written in American english by turning them into British english in violation of Wikipedia's policy on varieties of English as you did in the Castle bravo and Bikini atoll articles. Under WP:ENGVAR this is valdalism. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VAND to find out what vandalism is, and WP:ALUM which explains that on chemistry-related articles we use the spellings laid down by IUPAC. --John (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I re-reverted those edits. The spellings in the dialect which the article is written in are Aluminum and Cesium. This is dealt with in WP:ENGVAR. Please do not cause edit wars over this. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Haver you read WP:ALUM? --John (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read MOS:TIES - Castle Bravo is clearly associated with American English, not British English. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and WP:ALUM applies to specifically chemistry-related articles. Nuclear testing is a stretch on that. Perhaps arbitration is required to decide whether MOS:TIES or WP:ALUM prevails? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I wouldn't think so. All that is required is reading the material rather than reverting it. Are you able to do that? Do you really think this is not a chemistry-related article, when it talks about the chemistry of these elements? I have seen marginal cases, but this is not one of them. --John (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England
I'm going to tear my hair out. This bit from Blackstone just. isn't. discussed. It's not a subject of modern scholars - it's never mentioned. What Blackstone thought in 1753 just isn't relevant ... and can't fit in .... please, if anyone's watching, keep me from losing my cool over this idiocy. (This is an excellent example of why writing articles on broader subjects is thankless.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Writing articles on broader subjects isn't only thankless it's a waste of time, as they'll only get trashed. You may recall that I gave up on information technology during the core contest last year. All I can do now is to try and prevent it from getting worse. Eric   Corbett  01:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and have commented there. --John (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Playmobil
Hi, I temporarily undid your revision of Playmobil because I'd like to discuss a few things. 1. The pronunciation was from the official Playmobil cite, deleting it has made the reference incorrect. 2. Why did you remove so many Cultural references, but leave the ThinkGeek one? -  <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#0000CD>Metalello    <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#FFE303>talk 19:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for letting me know. On the first point, we use IPA pronunciation keys and the "official" one was identical and redundant to the IPA one. On the second point, I left that one in because it was verifiable to a valid third-party source, whereas the others were not. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. I understand that IPA is used, it was in fact I who added the IPA in the first place. But I feel that the pronunciation offered by the company should be included in some form, perhaps a little further down? It's graphically distinct from the IPA. 2. I'm not sure I understand the third party criterion. By that standard a lot of the main article should be deleted, as it uses the official PM sites for a source and not a third party media article. -   <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#0000CD>Metalello    <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#FFE303>talk 20:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Later on would be fine, or else in the ref itself rather than duplicating the IPA. I tend to apply a stronger standard of sourcing to what amounts to trivia than to substantive content. I suppose you are right and a lot of the rest of the article needs to be deletd or referenced properly. --John (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll move the pronunciation, and I'll put back your grammar edits (after I get back from work). If you don't mind can we leave in the cultural references for now? -  <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#0000CD>Metalello    <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#FFE303>talk 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about returning them with a tag? I can take care of it if you agree that is an ok compromise. --John (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Like a "needs source" tag or something? That sounds fine by me. -  <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#0000CD>Metalello    <font face="Linux Libertine"><font color=#FFE303>talk 20:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking would be the right tag. There is some interesting stuff there that can probably be sourced, but a lot of it is trivial "mentions" which have no place here. --John (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

iPad Mini
I've started the discussion on the talk page and if the editor responds there, I fully expect personal attacks from the other editor as has been seen already in several discussions. Feel free to facilitate there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I appreciate that you took it easy on the other editor since that editor has not been blocked before. I saw the message you left and highlighted the bright line nature of 3RR. Thanks. I don't want to come off sounding ungrateful. The method you have chosen is a lot more difficult than a block (or two--yes I realize that I could have been blocked as well). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will keep an eye on the whole situation there, don't worry. No need to thank me, all part of the service. --John (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

caisse

 * [[File:FQ-caisse.ogg]]

You hear [kɛːs] or [kaɪ̯s] ? 198.105.102.113 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New Order
good edit, but that terrible, haggard lead image has to go :) Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree but it'll be the usual problem about finding decent photos which are freely licensed. How're you keeping? --John (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, keeping my head down, keeping out of trouble ;) Some thing you might enjoy.. My brother went to see Hook palying solo in Cardiff last year, and was more than a little surprised at how good it was. Ceoil (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Source for Bowie Reed Reaction?
Hi John, You cancelled my edit on Lou Reed's page on the grounds that a secondary source is needed. What kind of secondary source do you need? Bowie's reaction was linked directly to Bowie's website. Please let me know so I can add the necessary links. Bowie and Reed were longtime friends, he produced Reed's 2nd album ("Transformer") in 1972, they sang together on multiple occasions, and they still saw each other regularly in NYC. It would be weird to mention reactions on Twitter by Jackson, Wood, etc... and not by Bowie who's known him for over 30 years, has worked with him, and was a personal friend... Best, TheGreatTweedsmuir (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)TheGreatTweedsmuir
 * See WP:SECONDARY. --John (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your reply. Let me clarify because I probably didn't explain myself well in the message above: I am asking '''which claim you want a secondary source for. ''' I do know what a secondary source is. According to the page you linked to, "deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate (...) is a matter of good editorial judgment." I don't see why you would want a secondary source for the Bowie quote, since it is a direct quote, not an interpretation of anything. But of course, if you want one, I'll find it, it's all over the web. If on the other hand you want a secondary source for the claim that Bowie and Reed were longtime friends then please let me know, I'll find plenty, it's a fact as commonly known in the rock community as the fact that John Lennon was married to Yoko Ono. TheGreatTweedsmuir (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your messages and sorry my last reply was a bit terse. Not everything we can find references for (even secondary ones) is suitable for Wikipedia. When someone dies, there is a flood of condolences, eulogies and tributes. We don't need to publish them all in full. I have therefore argued in talk for restricting these items to the most important ones, and as a minimum this would require providing a secondary source. I hope this makes sense. --John (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Marie Curie nationality, new options.
Hello, Could you please go back to and indicate if any of the newly provided options are preferred? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Reed - death
I found what appears to be a very definitive source as to the month of Reed's liver transplant in the June 11th Cleveland Plain Dealer. Their reporter cited <I>"early May"</I> after having spoken to the clinic after the latter received a release from the family to confirm the procedure. I posted the cite at the Wikipedia article. ABC News repeated the "April" month as recently as yesterday and the earlier NY Times Obit was in error as well. If they haven't changed it, I'll write to the reporter and let him know so it can be changed. Thank you for bringing the Wikipedia "Spring" issue to my attention. Activist (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. --John (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail etc.
Hello John. I understand that you don't like the Daily Mail. I can't say that I'm a fan of it either, and have removed info sourced to it myself (see here). However I think some consideration has to be paid to context. The edit you made here, for example, is not in a BLP and the info you removed was not particularly controversial (and unlike my Sean Penn removal, it could also easily be corroborated by another source, which I subsequently did). Furthermore, your edit summary was misleading, and certainly caused my eyebrows to be raised. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The only thing I agree with you on is that my edit summary could have been more descriptive. The material I removed which was sourced to a publication with a reputation for regularly making up lies, is controversial and does concern a living person (Anneka Rice) in quite a negative way. I see you have restored the criticism with a better source and I am not sure that was the right thing to do, or if this is due weight on this article. I may raise the matter in article talk. --John (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Gilligan
Once again, has been editing that article, and I'm concerned about the sourcing (esp per BLP policy).

For example;

in a case of child abuse which he had wrongly linked to a mosque. The Telegraph deleted Gilligan's article and issued a correction, though he later denied any story he had written had been corrected.

The above is firstly referenced to a news item which was later retracted, and then "supported" by a blog source; you can note that the last reference states "I'm a senior reporter for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. This is my personal blog" - and thus not an appropriate reference at all.

I think it should be removed, but last time I tried that, I got myself blocked. I'd also previously posted concerns on BLPN (as you advised), but that didn't seem to help much; I'm not at all interested in Wikipedia machinations, but I am hoping you can perhaps do something about this problem.

Thanks, 88.104.20.17 (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've raised this again at BLPN. --John (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is this IP editor wrongly giving the impression that I've just made another controversial edit? Please check the article's recent history, I merely reinstated reference to Gilligan's entirely non-controversial career at the Evening Standard. The only recent edit to the paragraph the IP editor refers to was by, who removed a couple of the sources cited above, as he felt they were not strong enough. I discussed this with him on his talk page, he gave his reasons, and I was happy to leave it at that. Why remove it as it stands now, it is sourced from the Leveson Enquiry and from the Telegraph's own published correction? UsamahWard (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it. I raised it at a central discussion, as I noted above. --John (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the IP editor's wish to remove it, I note you have left this paragraph intact. UsamahWard (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again John; despite your previous polite requests that that user not add things without consensus, they are continuing to do so; for example       etc.

It's getting silly. I've been happy to discuss whether it should be included, and personally I don't think it should be; obviously, that user does. But there's no consensus for it, and the only time others have commented they've also been against it.

I've suggested he could of course create an RfC - but... well, he just keeps adding it back without consensus.

Can you help? 88.104.4.74 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would welcome another viewpoint on the introduction to the article, which is why I posted an RFC. As for "... and the only time others have commented they've also been against it", this appears to be another untruth, I see no other comments about the introduction - I'm happy to be shown otherwise. The repeated removal of this text citing WP:BLP is inappropriate, as BLP requires removal where sourcing is weak, which doesn't apply here. The IP editor has constantly changed their reason for removing the text, initially protesting the phrase "best known", which had stood since 2004, and is supported by sources (examples in the talk page). Even so, in the spirit of finding a way forward I left out the word "best", but then even saying he was "known" for this issue was deemed objectionable by the IP editor. Despite the countless strong sources that make such a position untenable, I reworded it again so it didn't include the word known. Then the objection raised was that it was negative, which is a bizarre interpretation of the very neutral text; and even if it were, it still wouldn't be a problem, as explained in WP:LEAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsamahWard (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * John, events moved on, sadly I had to post to the cesspit that is called ANI Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've commented there. --John (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=580268291 your edit] to Chipotle Mexican Grill may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., is a chain of restaurants in the United States,
 * Thanks BB, you're invaluable. --John (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland wiki entry
Hi John

I have just joined Wikipedia in an effort to try and have the page for the organisation I work for updated. In an effort to avoid being unethical, I wondered if this is something you might consider taking on, as looking at the history of the page it looks like you wrote the orginal page, or at least contributed considerably?

The Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS) became the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) on 1 April 2013, as part of reform to police and fire services in Scotland (i.e. eight Scottish police forces merging into one Police Scotland). As such, the PCCS wiki page is now quite out of date. The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 saw the PCCS take on responsibility for investigating the most serious incidents involving the police as well as continuing with the complaints review function and remit to drive up standards in police complaints handling.

There seems to be a page set up for the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner that has been linked to from the IPCC wiki, but no content has been added.

By way of providing some background, there is the PIRC website, the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 and the Scottish Government website. The Scottish Parliament website also holds some information in relation to the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, at which the current Commissioner John McNeill appeared last month to give evidence on progress to date. There has also been a fair bit of press coverage both in the run up to becoming the PIRC (and as part of the coverage of police reform) and since 1 April in particular relation to completed investigations.

If this is not something you are able to do, if you could please let me know, that would be great. As I say, I'm completely new to the world of Wikipedia in terms of the editing side of things, so if you have suggestions for how I can achieve changes to the page without causing trouble, that would be brilliant. Thanks in advance.

Kirsty Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirstyGordon (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Kirsty. I am happy to help you. I can do some research myself but if you have any of the news sources you mention above that would be a good start. --John (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi John, thanks for getting back to me so quickly and great that you're able to help. Some links that might help are:


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-19113374
 * http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Complaints-Commissioner-To-Serve-Single-Force_54573.html
 * http://www.policeoracle.com/news/New-Police-Complaints-Role-Outlined_55049.html
 * http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Scotland-Senior-Complaints-Investigator-Appointed_56442.html
 * http://www.policingtoday.co.uk/scots_pcc_impressed_by_police_reform_bill_23081.aspx
 * http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/revealed-name-for-country-s-single-force-the-police-service-of-scotland-1-2060759
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/single-fire-and-police-force-plan-published.16505044
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/historic-change-ushers-in-a-new-era-of-crime-fighting.20442003
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/ex-cid-boss-to-investigate-police.19115595
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-police-watchdog-will-be-led-by-former-cid-chief.19593625
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-watchdog-chief-appointed.20166253
 * http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/irene-scullion-to-lead-police-complaints-body-1-2784982
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-police-watchdog-launches-recruitment-drive-for-trainees.19646459
 * http://www.policingtoday.co.uk/use_of_taser_on_15_year_old_proportionate_81221.aspx
 * http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/taser-use-on-15yo-scots-school-pupil-justified-1-2971537
 * http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/19/scotland-police-boy-taser-inquiry
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/probe-to-be-launched-into-legal-high-death.21511571
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/police-criticised-after-ex-soldier-lost-leg-in-crash.21872401
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-erred-in-case-of-missing-mother-who-killed-herself.22401434
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/watchdog-police-were-justified-in-using-tasers-on-sword-man-who-threatened-them.1382361633
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/use-of-tasers-during-stand-off-proportionate.22483995
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-must-review-missing-inquiries.22496869
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/agenda.22634699
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/assaults-by-officers-claims-at-lowest-for-six-years.22646094
 * http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/independent-investigation-when-police-in-fatal-crash-1-2922863
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24201492


 * Also non media: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2013/9780111019566


 * There are plenty of other press articles if you need them, particularly on thecourier.co.uk, stv.tv, heraldscotland.com, policeoracle.com, bbc.co.uk, dailyrecord.co.uk and other Scottish titles.


 * If there is anything else I can do to help supply information please let me know.


 * Thanks again KirstyGordon (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I should have some time to look at this tomorrow. --John (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again John. Just a quick message to let you know that I am away on leave next week in case you need any further information on this in that time.  I am around today and tomorrow, otherwise if you contact our Head of Communications on 01698 542900 (reluctant to put names and email addresses on here...).  Alternatively I'm back on Monday 25 November.  Thanks again for looking into this. - (KirstyGordon (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC))
 * Sorry I haven't yet had time to properly look into it. I'll try to put a quick fix into place in the next few days, and fix it up properly at the weekend. --John (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries John, appreciate you taking the time at all. - KirstyGordon (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at this. I will do more on it in the days to come. Thank you for letting me know of the discrepancy. --John (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi John, just to say thank you for your work on this so far and to let you know I'm back from leave should you need any further information. Thanks again, KirstyGordon (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, what I did was minimal. I still intend to do more on this but have been busy myself. --John (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit
Hello, would you be able to copyedit Crocodilia? LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. --John (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure. It's a great article; let me know if you need any other work on it. Thanks for asking me. --John (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

However
That's a charming note on my talk page, but the thanks must really flow in your direction. You have taught me to beware of the siren however, which so often clogs up a sentence unnecessarily and diminishes its impact. I am ashamed to say I attempted to twist your tail when we first engaged in discussion on the point at Alec Douglas-Home, but I am now a convert. (PS: You wouldn't care to comment at the peer review the Wells Cathedral article, by any happy chance?) Tim riley (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was with that in mind that I wanted to thank you, though I couldn't remember the exact article I had a feeling we had argued about it. It meant even more to me that you had changed your mind and that the thanks were not mere sycophancy. You're clearly a great writer and reviewer, it's possible that you were right in Home's case, and I certainly don't bear you any grudge for what you said back then, though on reviewing it I'd say that nether of us explained ourselves particularly well to the other. I'll be happy to look at the peer review when I have time. --John (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done that. I hope you don't regret inviting me to look at it. --John (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wolves

 * Geist, as you probably now know, was a moderately successful academic scientist studying ungulates.
 * In retirement it appears he's taken to speculating on wolves. His core idea on topic (that wolves habituated to humans may be more likely to attack than non-habituated wolves) seems intuitively correct.
 * But as far as I can tell, he's never done actual science in this regard. His writings on topic seem sort of huffy and polemic, and he's mainly gotten traction on this via elk-hunting groups and cattle management organizations and the like. Still, he does broadly fit definition of "reliable source."
 * One thing is, Geist "edited" and secured an obscure publisher, for the truly God-awful Will N. Graves, who as a result, now qualifies as "source" for Wikipedia (and grist for many rabid anti-wolf groups).
 * Thing is, there are other sources that are doing actually legitimate science in field (and very broadly, would support Geist's basic idea, although not his craziness). Here I like Mech, among the most widely respected U.S. wolf researchers, who acknowledges some remarkably intense wolf attacks in India, even while expressing caution. Also Linnell, who published a long list of Eurasian wolf attack reports "through the ages," along with an extended discussion about why many of them are of uncertain authenticity. I suspect Linnell "accepted" or at least acknowledged many of these reports to defuse anti-wolf elements and place them in context of actual risk. I think he was moderately successful in context. But his work here is just used to pad "the list."


 * I don't think it's reasonable to expect to merge this article. Also, it does appear that there IS an evolving sense among responsible biologists, that wolves actually can, rarely, pose a danger to humans -- especially when humans eliminate their prey and they live in close proximity (India etc.) This emerging consensus, based on science, is changed from that of twenty years ago. Of course, the consensus suggests that rats, squirrels & etc., ad infinitude,  are a more serious risk to humans than wolves.

There are at least 3 editors at Wolf Attacks, who are really committed to the "anything goes" theory of sourcing and they have, in my opinion, an agenda that is not commensurate with good editing.
 * One of them, Chrisrus, actually said on talk page (only slight paraphrase) that "scientists suppress information on wolf attacks and if only the public understood this" etc. Mario and Graham seem slightly more sophisticated, but I gather their general perspective is similar.
 * I just think article would benefit from maybe a section near top, discussing difficulty of assessing historical "reports" of wolf attacks, as well as assessing similar reports from tribal areas of Asia & etc.
 * Best would be if article were merged and/or reports acceptable to Wikipedia were limited to those subject to modern science and forensics, but that probably won't happen.
 * Your idea that this article is product of WP:SYNTH is technically correct.

76.250.61.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, thank you. I am not an expert in this field but the sentence in the lead and the long indiscriminate list both seem very unencyclopedic to me. --John (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead sentence in question is contradicted by another and more relevant source; list is demonstrably a product of original research and synthesis. But so are probably ALL lists on Wikipedia & I don't know whether one ought to object on this basis.76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a dreadful-looking article, but we have many of them, sadly. I still think that sentence in the lead has to go. --John (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

While, whilst, which and that
"Miss Jones sang her aria outstandingly, while the choir sang the Hallelujah Chorus with great gusto." Good luck with "while"! I have wimpishly given up on it, confining myself to rounds of rapid fire at any incidence of "whilst". Our American colleagues have pulled me up about the distinction between "which" and "that", which some of the most eminent English writers have been lax about, but our US colleagues are right, for all that. It is a treat to exchange views with someone who relishes words and cares about their use. Happily we have lots of like-minded WP colleagues. (And if, as seems, you've never seen Wells Cathedral, you have a breathtaking treat in store.) – Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Edinburgh is so far from Wells. I will make it there one day I hope. Re which and that, this is one that Eric taught me. It's a simple enough rule and I don't know how I got through so much of my life without knowing it. I will continue the battle against however, while and (especially) whilst. Unbeknownst is one I had never seen until I started editing here. It combines ugliness, pretentiousness and datedness. Having worked in the States for a few years I know that Americans are not universally taught as we are that "shorter is better" and this often shows on articles. I appreciate the note and I hope if I can ever be of any help to you that you will ask. --John (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck request for help
Hi there, John, I hope you're doing well!
 * Fuck (film)

suggested at Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1 that you might be able to help with some copy editing to improve prose at the FAC article I'm working on, Fuck (film), specifically with regards to improvement of flow.

Or, if you think it's fine as is after I've responded to additional comments at the FAC by users including and, you could mention that, as well, at the FAC subpage.

Any help or input at this point would be appreciated.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look and I think I can definitely improve the flow. I should be able to look at it this evening. --John (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh wonderful, thank you very much! Some copy edits for flow if you think you can help would be most appreciated! Keep me posted, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful suggestion at Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1]. I moved all those alternate titles to a footnote, and also broken up that first sentence in two, as you recommended. I think it looks much better. Keep me posted on those prose changes, I look forward to it, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a great pleasure and I appreciate being asked. I might not get all that much more done tonight, so I hope you're not in too much of a hurry. It's an interesting article. --John (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no need for more done tonight. But I am going to be traveling with limited Internet access soon, so the sooner the better. But sometime within the next couple or few days should be okay. Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try for another hour later tonight, and should finish tomorrow. --John (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds wonderful, thank you so much!! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am done for now. I am not quite ready to support yet but I think I have done the bulk of what I saw as needing done. I hope you agree it reads better now. --John (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, sure, thank you so much, looks fantastic! What else needs to happen for you to get to that level of comfort in that position? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! I've asked a couple of minor editorial questions at the FAC that I would like to see addressed before I can support. Thanks again for asking me to help, it was a pleasure. --John (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I responded to those, as well. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded at FAC by supporting. --John (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Would it be alright with you if I moved your addressed FAC comments to the FAC talk page? I'm just sort of doing some minor formatting to keep the process running smoothly. Wanted to ask your permission first, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd weakly prefer that you not do that. I don't think it benefits anybody. It's still possible more reviewers will come along and it doesn't make sense to make them search on a separate page for comments. --John (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's totally fine! It makes sense, actually, for people to see the progression and improvement in this particular case. Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

UK Election Pages
Just a heads up re User Number 57 who I noticed 2 days ago you gave a final warning to, for disruptive edits. Number 57 has gone through reverting a constructive edit to each page from 1868 to 2010 without any explanation. I have just gone through and undone all these reversions.Graemp (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have asked another admin to look at this as I don't feel able to take admin action here, given our recent editorial disagreement. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. --John (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Go the Fuck to Sleep
I saw your helpful improvements at the page Go the Fuck to Sleep, thank you.
 * Go the Fuck to Sleep

Would you like to collaborate with me on a quality improvement project on that article, in memory of ?

mentioned on the talk page of the article that it had potential to be improved to WP:GA quality -- but died before being able to accomplish that.

I think the article itself has potential but needs a bit more expansion from secondary sources, and better structural organization.

What do you think?

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let me take a look. --John (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I
You are mentioned at AN/I. Collect (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh. Here's a hint; stop making false claims, and you won't have to deal with others calling your false claims what they are. --John (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Was there anything in particular which inspired this? --John (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

 * Aw, you needn't have bothered! Thank you very much for the thought. --John (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I
Your edit summary is mentioned at AN/I. Collect (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh. Here's a hint; stop making false claims, and you won't have to deal with others calling your false claims what they are. Haven't we just done this? Oh well. --John (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV/N
As a courtesy note, has opened a discussion at WP:NPOV/N of content which you and he have been disputing from the Daily Mail article. I didn't see that you'd been notified, hence this note. MastCell Talk 22:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for so carefully following my edits. Collect (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Gosh. That's two months of stonewalling and false claims in article talk, two AN/I reports (which were both quickly closed as inappropriate) when I called him out on his lies, one POINTy RfC, a 3RR "warning", and now another noticeboard report. All we need is a partridge in a pear tree, eh? Before I go and look at what he has written (and believe me, I hold out no great hopes that it will be edifying for anybody), thank you for the notification. --John (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be in more trouble than I am these days. ;-) Eric   Corbett  22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. Eric, if this was you, you would be banned, checkusered, sanctioned by Arbcom, electronically tagged, and made to do community service in a sack on the school maggot heap by now. Only my superior Wiki-fu, and my friends in high places, are keeping me squeaky clean. How are you, my friend? --John (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been almost banned, checkusered and sanctioned by ArbCom, so I've almost got the full set. I'm in the pink, and for perhaps for the only time since I was a kid looking forward to Christmas. But of course I'm looking forward even more to when it's all over. Eric   Corbett  22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice, I am too, for several reasons. Lot going on at work at the moment, so I am a bit restricted for time on here. It doesn't help if one's limited time is taken up by spurious crap and forum-shopping from editors apparently willing to take short-cuts with the truth to defend the reputation of the good old Daily Mail... If you felt like weighing in at the RfC, now it is a bit more neutrally-worded, that would be welcome, though I don't blame you if you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Alternatively, if you were looking for any copy-editing or reviewing, you needn't look any further. I liked what you did on Fuck by the way; I think between us we really cleaned it up. --John (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How could anyone resist an article called Fuck? Eric   Corbett  22:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, I couldn't resist. I don't fancy the film much, it sounds plodding. Decent article now though. --John (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (watching) I couldn't resist a similar temptation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah! We all probably have a dirty word problem! In my own case I find I have not lost my childhood fascination for swear words, although I find their overuse distasteful. --John (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Their overuse is certainly distasteful, but they have their uses as intensifiers no matter what the civility police might believe. Eric   Corbett  23:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fucking right. --John (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor Edits
I'm at the moment making a project page that I have not finished so I don't need to say Non-Minor Edit, Non-Minor Edit, Non-Minor Edit, Non-Minor Edit, Non-Minor Edit, Non-Minor Edit, Non-Minor Edit, Non-Minor Edit, Non-Minor Edit, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FINISHED MAKING A PROJECT PAGE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb423 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the message and for the good edits you are making. Thanks also for not marking your latest edit as minor. Let's keep that going because it is a silly reason to get blocked. --John (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

When not to mark an edit as a minor edit
Adding or removing content in an article (got it) Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article - (What?) Adding or removing references or external links in an article (got it) Adding comments to a talk page or other discussion (got it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb423 (talk • contribs)


 * That's great, thank you. --John (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley mess up
Oops! Looks like we're both trying to make some improvements to the same section on the Aleister Crowley page; I ended up accidentally undoing some of your edits while implementing my own, and then you undid my edit. I'll go ahead and fix it so that all of our edits can remain. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --John (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Great to see some effort in trying to improve that page. Eric   Corbett  20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It could do with some help all right. He is an interesting character. --John (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One of my anti-heroes in fact. Eric   Corbett  23:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That article needs an awful lot of work, even to meet the GA criteria I think. How it managed to get through GAN I can't imagine. Eric   Corbett  18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did wonder. --John (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm on the verge of nominating this rambling and rather poorly written article at WP:GAR. It should never have been passed as a GA. Any thoughts? Eric   Corbett  22:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Daley
Even with a reference, I wonder if that content is too much personal information?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The father's death or the gay relationship? --John (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been a tad busy. I meant the information about his home location. (although naming his boyfriend may not be appropriate unless this information is clearly public and non controversial).--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael Peter Woroniecki
On July 16, 2011, you contacted user Joshua Woroniecki with this message on his talk page:

"I'm awfully sorry but I have to insist you do not edit an article on which you have an apparent conflict of interest again. The next time you do that this account will be blocked indefinitely. --John (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)"

Only 7 days later, on July 23, 2011 an anonymous editor (quite possibly the user you warned) at 64.79.101.170 added to the article an "unduly self serving" third party sourced quote originally from the family's website that serves to promote the family's ministry by soliciting contacts from the public:

“Are you willing to look deeper, beyond it all? Please give us a chance to help you. It will be well worth your time. What we offer you is not a new group, “church”, formulas, self exaltation or doctrines. What we offer you is the love of the living Jesus who has the answers that you are looking for.”

This quote is "unduly self serving" according to WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:ABOUTSELF and is therefore not permissible even as third party sourced material.

I believe the family has been using this wikipedia page as a promotional platform, particularly through said quote, to solicit greater contact with the public, which in turn favors increasing their financial support base.

Over the last 30 days, someone has tenaciously refused to let this "unduly self serving" quote suffer removal, despite the clear reasons provided and rules cited that disallow it. (Please see edit history page.) I believe only the Woronieckis would go to such lengths to refuse to let such a self serving quote be deleted.

Several reverts were made from IPs in North Carolina and Georgia at the same dates the Woroniecki's unique protest sign messages were tweeted or reported on in these states or around the times they moved through these states. The Woronieckis protest against Churches with provocative banner signs in an itinerant fashion from campus to campus across the US and were seen traveling south through eastern US seaboard states from NY-GA in Oct and Nov 2013.

www.theslateonline.com/article/2013/10/jesus-banners-wave-at-su Oct 9, 2013 Shippenburg Univiversity, Shippenburg, PA

https://twitter.com/KellyFairbanks Kelly Fairbanks ‏@KellyFairbanks 13 Nov All of these "church is a joke" banners around Tate are actually kind of making me angry Collapse Reply  Retweet  Favorite   More Nov 13, 2013 University of Georgia, Athens GA

religionnerd.com/2013/11/19/believe-in-jesus-read-the-bible-dont-go-to-church/ Athens, GA University of Georgia, Nov 19, 2013

I'm persuaded the Woronieckis are monitoring the article and maintaining their promotional/diluted noteriety bias through anonymous edits. There is another edit made on this date: (cur | prev) 02:59, 27 September 2013‎ 108.120.226.7 (talk)‎. . (29,020 bytes) (-298)‎. . (removal of unsourced and potential "invasion of privacy" statements) (undo) Which was a reasonable edit made by the family, who was seen at Univeristy of Illinois Urbana on the date the edit was made according to this tweeted photo: http://www.eyeem.com/p/19713731 I cite it merely to show they are actively monitoring and anonymously editing the article.

Despite clear BLP rule violations the delete sought to fix, an anonymous IP in the UK steps in, disregards the already discussed reverts, favors the violations of the Woroniecki edits, just as user: Off2riorob aka youreallycan (a blocked administrator) and user: Kevin (demoted administrator) favored the edits and stealth edits Joshua Woroniecki made in the article which removed very well sourced information from major publishing house books, city newspapers and mainstream US news outlets that clarify the allegations reputable sources made regarding the preacher's affect on Andrea Yates, like the two quotes seen below:

1-"Yates had suffered from mental illness for years -- depression with bouts of psychosis, suicide attempts and hospitalizations. Soon after the birth of her fourth child, Luke, she began to have violent thoughts. Her delusions were fueled by the extreme religious beliefs of a bizarre, itinerant street preacher named Michael Woroniecki whom her husband, Rusty, had introduced her to." http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2244865

2-"Here is where the Woroniecki doctrinal muddle sets in. Whether to the casual observer or to those who had tried to follow Woroniecki for years, the streets of heaven seemed empty. In spite of the ransom given for all men for all time, the numeric set of the "saved" seems to number only 8 people, his wife and his children. If you count his mother--who was on the "maybe" list--9. For those who were drawn to Michael Woroniecki for the sincerity of his beliefs and his walking the walk he talked, there seemed little if any hope to equal his personal success. For those who like Andrea Yates, were both sincere and driven to please, following Woroniecki could lead to ruin." Author and Yale University Instructor Suzanne O'Malley, Are You There Alone?, p. 109 Simon & Schuster Publishers. www.suzanneomalley.com

The quotes highlight the court documented psychotic scripts Yates revealed in her post arrest psychiatric records, which are also enumerated in O'Malley's book. Both she and the children had to die because she was a bad mother headed for hell, and she was damaging her children which would cause them to stumble and go to hell. These thoughts were demonstrated to have come from Yate's preaching materials.

Joshua also removed the reason the Woroniecki's have notoriety in the header, the seemingly unconstitutional (which wasn't, as the articles revealed) ouster from his hometown in Grand Rapids in 1981 which made national news in the US and the international story about Andrea Yates killing her children in 2001 and his media alleged role as her minister in effecting that result. Joshua substitutes his campus protests as the means to notoriety. This low level of notoriety that excluded the controversial matters disqualified their page on their father in Spanish Wickipedia as promotional, which was being made around the same time the English page was being biased in the favor of the Woroniecki's. According to http://www.apologeticsindex.org/w16.html

"In what comes across as somewhat of a PR campaign since early in 2010 the Woroniecki's have established on online presence, including a website, a blog, and videos on Vimeo and Youtube. At the same time they have attempted to purge information posted elsewhere by critics. In some cases they have succeeded in doing so (e.g. Wikipedia and YouTube). Apologetics Index was asked by Joshua Woroniecki to remove this page. However, our policy is to encourage visitors to research any and all topics included in this website from a variety of perspectives. That is why we attempt to provide links to a variety of research resources -- which can include pointers to pro- contra- or neutral information about the subject."

Discussion on the talk page has done nothing to rectify the new bias of this article over the last 4 years. User Jibbytot gave up in frustration trying to effect change on the talk page. I believe whoever the anonymous UK editor is knows this, so when he makes the revert to the original article keeping the "unduly self serving" quote and refers to make discussion on the talk page, he expects nothing will change as it was before.

I believe what the Woronieckis have done is simply contact one of the editors, possibly Off2riorob (who was a UK editor watching the page for years and favored them 4 years ago) through private email, and he returned to the page he had been watching and guarding years ago before he was finally blocked for harassing other editors.

If I am not correct, and I have misinterpreted the WP BLP rules concerning promotion and unduly self serving quotes from third party sources, I apologize. Nevertheless, I think it is clear the Woroniecki's have a biased stranglehold on this article that has been facilitated and protected by at least two discredited editors for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.191.202 (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What would you like me do? Obviously I have noted everything you have said. --John (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you read the rationales given in each reversion comment and arbitrate a decision on whether the "anonymously" installed third party quote of the family's website is "unduly self-serving" because of its promotional soap-box nature--using Wikipedia to solicit public contacts. The quote is an invitation, not their "message", as the restorer argued.


 * I would ask that Woroniecki's true notoriety be restored to the header paragraph--the national/international story about his court documented and media reported alleged negative association as Yates' preacher. If he wants to be known as a street preacher of 30 years, that's fine, but that's not what made him internationally newsworthy. "Michael Woroniecki is an international, non-denominational Christian missionary and itinerant street preacher, mostly widely known for his alleged negative influence on Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who in 2001 drowned her five children." Emphasis on alleged keeps this from being a libelous accusation. It is merely the reason for his notoriety and justification for inclusion as a noteworthy Wikipedia entry.


 * Finally, considering the truthful notoriety of the preacher, I would ask that you use your authority and oversight to allow for better treatment in the article to what was reported about the preacher so a reader can come away with more than a family watered down allegation he influenced Yates. It would seem that a few quotes from mainstream media describing how he affected Yates like the ABC-Primetime and O'Malley quotes already provided would be appropriate, along with Andrea's delusions and their court documented connection to the preacher's teaching materials be provided. Otherwise readers come away with the possible notion that these allegations have no basis in reality and the press in general was merely having a field day persecuting a bible believing Christian.


 * The preacher's defense as read in the media should be presented rather than the one substituted in the article by JW. Michael Woroniecki's defense in a letter he wrote to O'Malley dated Oct 24, 2002 and printed on page 97 of her book originally read as,


 * For whatever it may be worth, I want to reiterate that Andrea's sole motive for her diabolical actions was revenge. It was deep and it was intense. She had told me on several occasions of her intense hatred for Rusty. She pleaded with me for an answer on how to live with him. She despised him. Matters concerning God had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. All the usage of Christian rhetoric, by her or the media, was nothing more than a smoke screen to cover her true motive. There is only one major variable. To what degree was Andrea drug induced at the exact time of her actions? If she was intoxicated with those drugs (as I am convinced she was by Rusty whose motives in dispensing these drugs was sinister, contrary to what he outwardly conveyed). He wanted to silence her while at the same time using her as his slave to take care of the kids. In this case, there is no doubt that Satan took full advantage of her by filling her mind diabolical delusions with twisted 'Christian' conclusions.


 * That was Woroniecki's defense as reported in the major press.


 * If he wants to add in other quotes about how he loved the Yates and told them to love their children, that's fine, he said that in the press as well, but not to the exclusion of the defense given above, which again, highlights specific allegations that help the reader understand Woroniecki's media stated position on why Andrea did what she did and why he's innocent.


 * Those simple changes I believe will bring encyclopedic balance to the article. I can't make these changes without fair oversight which hasn't existed for the last 4 years--the last month of reverts and an anonymous IP police action restoring the article to its promotional state only underscores this problem. If I were to make these changes myself, the people JW persuaded 4 years ago to help him get the article to where it is today will return and mop up the changes.71.251.178.167 (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 Glasgow helicopter crash
Just a small query regarding your revert of my addition of two wikilinks to eurocopter. I may be missing something, but the article doesn't seem to have any links to the wiki page for this company directly even although it is mentioned significantly. This is a separate article to the one about the eurocopter helicopter. Removing one of the links might have been reasonable, but why both? Hope this makes sense --<font color="green" size="1px">nonsense <font color="BF1BE0" size="1px">ferret 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's what we call chain-linking, Nonsenseferret. The company wasn't involved in the accident, but one of their products was. The article at Eurocopter EC135 has a link to the company article. We don't need to include every single possible link, and adding two was certainly over the top, as you've conceded. If it's important to you to have one, I probably wouldn't fight it, but really, why? --John (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I've re-added one of the links. I think it is entirely reasonable and helpful to have a link to Eurocopter when the paragraph is discussing what the company did and advised, as distinct from the details of the helicopter. --<font color="green" size="1px">nonsense <font color="BF1BE0" size="1px">ferret 21:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw. I think that's fine. Two was definitely too many. --John (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

personal attack removed
At the Daily Mail talk page. Please note that I am not adding to the list at AN/I here -- but I suggest you understand "verb sap". Collect (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Are you sure you're not mixing me up with someone else? It's true that I commented that your source does not back up your statement, but anyone reading the page can see that. This does indeed make your statement a lie (if it's intentional, unless you're claiming insanity, possession by demons or the like), and it does indeed make your statement "bullshit". How are you getting a "personal attack" out of that though? I am commenting on your dishonest behaviour, not on you as a person, and I very much stand by my comment. Wouldn't it be better to provide a source that says what you want to say, rather than one which doesn't, or to admit you are wrong? I really do feel sorry for you as it seems you have dug yourself into such a deep hole with your lies and you cannot resist continuing to dig.... Others are not daft and they must be drawing similar conclusions to mine at the moment. Are you a bit stressed? Do you need to take a wee break? Cup of tea? Good night's sleep? Think about it. --John (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Gage matter
I think I did a bit too much at the COIN in regards to the issues, but I've spent too many hours reviewing the information given that Gage was quite the interesting fellow. I do acknowledge EEng as an expert, but I disagree that the vast majority of such a detailed page should come from him or his co-author. I was worried about the matter following my reading of that GAR. Fleischman's work (not the user, DrFleischman) was the first result on Google and Amazon and scholar and while I found several more, I was disturbed by the reading in the new Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 3 which presents the information from many authors which Macmillan's work and EEng has so derided. I'll leave it in the communities hands, but I do hope EEng is capable of working positively to address the issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. Let's see how it goes. --John (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Pardner Pump
John, I noticed that you are an administrator and also a member of project firearms. I was doing a little editing to H&R Pardner 12GA when I noticed that the name seems to be at odds with the way shotgun articles are typically named on Wikipedia. Usually a specific gauge that a gun is offered in doesn’t get its own page. Also the manufacturer calls the shotgun the “Pardner Pump”. I understand that I (as an IP editor) can’t rename the page, but would you be able to? Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's interesting. I would raise that at a noticeboard; I'm not an expert in shotgun naming. Leave it with me, I will have a look. --John (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've raised the question centrally. --John (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed title for August 2013 Egyptian raids
I think the best way to get someone to discuss the edit is to "make" this edit and wait for someone to disagree (since you don't seem interested in discussing). Don't you think? Sorry if i sound ignorant because i'm still not 100% familiar with many of Wikipedia's policies. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, i would wait for ages till someone notices my discussion on the talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You should give it at least 7 days. --John (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, i will wait.. Thanks. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your thanks! You're a great editor, but I do fear that you might be a bit over zealous in your mass deletion of tabloid refs. I only speak of those cases where the subject of the BLP themselves has given an interview to a tabloid, thus legitimising both the reference, and our article. Keep up your great work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gareth. I had a look and your edits are great too. I'm known for being easy-going and forgiving, but I'm pretty humourless about using tabloids to support contentious statements about living people. I really appreciate that you went to the trouble to find a better source. Let me know if I can ever help you in any way. Thanks again. --John (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC
Hi John, if you don't know it already, McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is undergoing FA candidacy atm. Since you have contributed to its last FAC in 2011, you are welcomed to do so again at Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive2. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will take a look. --John (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

 * Thanks! --John (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Block review
I am reviewing your block of User:Jay-W. Could you kindly comment on the question I've asked on his talkpage. Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you were asking me. I've moved my comment to the user's talk. --John (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
...Modernist (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's a great video. Same to you! --John (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw, thank you Bill. That's very kind of you. How have you been keeping? --John (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes

 * That's really nice of you Ceoil, thank you a chara. The same to you, on both counts. --John (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)