User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 13

Republic of China (1912–49)
Hi JohnBlackburne, Mistakefinder and Philipxd have recently re-edited the Republic of China (1912-49) article, including a massive deletion without an edit summary by Philipxd, and changing the lead paragraphs. Mistakefinder also added a tag on top wanting to merge Republic of China (1912-49) into History of the Republic of China, which, makes little sense.--Thomasettaei (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User page
Hello, What is the problem? why do not you let me do change. You're interfering to my user page. There are thousands of people's biography. Do not bother going to come.--Can Koray 21:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cankoray (talk • contribs)
 * , as the mfd notice itself says you should not remove the notice while the deletion discussion is underway. If you want to oppose the deletion then the discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cankoray is the proper place to do so. You should add your comments there, and others will reply there, to keep discussions about it all in one place.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!--Can Koray 22:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cankoray (talk • contribs)

License tagging for File:Android ruby screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading File:Android ruby screenshot.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for a 3rd opinion
Hi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead.

The dispute is at Talk:ABBA and your input would be very much appreciated. --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiWidgets
Hi John. The latest WikiWidgets discussion has been archived. My last reply to you was lengthy so I'm not sure if you got a chance to read it, if you read it and didn't find time to reply, or if you read it and decided not to reply, either because you agreed or because you got tired of discussing (Warnock's dilemma). Throughout the three cycles of discussion, some users have supported the project, others have opposed it, and others haven't expressed their opinion clearly. The implementation has improved a lot during the discussions, so I think that some users that opposed it first, may agree now. But of course I don't know that, and I don't want to annoy everyone by asking them to review the whole discussion. Instead, I thought that you, by having participated in the discussion the most, and by having been mostly on the opposing side, may adequately represent the opposition. I think that if you agree that the latest implementation addresses the key concerns well enough, then requesting the necessary edits to the MediaWiki namespace would be justified. And if you don't, then I really can't think of any further improvements to the implementation, so that would be it for the project in the English Wikipedia. So what do you think? Have the accessibility, performance and security concerns been adequately addressed, taking into account my last reply? Should I request the edits to the MediaWiki namespace and get the project started in the English Wikipedia? In any case, thanks. --Felipe (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * When something is posted onto the Village Pump or another central noticeboard it can be archived once consensus is achieved. If that does not happen it generally means there is no consensus for the change. If a discussion does not achieve consensus and peters out so it gets archived automatically then it also means there is not much interest in it. Changes to policy generally require not only clear consensus but a higher degree of participation than changes to an article, so a lack of consensus and interest normally means the changes are not implemented. Generally you need consensus to make changes to the MediaWiki namespace, which is lacking here. As the topic has archived three times now due to lack of interest it also seems not worth discussing it further at the Village Pump. Perhaps another venue, even off en.wp altogether, as it seems like something more suitable for adding to the MediaWiki software, which is outside the scope of the English language encyclopaedia.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok John, thanks, I'll try other channels to see if I meet more interest and support. Until next time! --Felipe (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Returning chemical substance article to the text written by a chemist
Rather than the reversion done by non-chemists. See the talk page at that article. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere near
I don't know whether you noticed or not but since you commented at the ICM category deletion debate last month, a new list is up at here. You said with pretty confidence at the discussion that it is "nowhere near being a defining category". "Nowhere near" is a pretty strong assertion and re-reading the entire discussion you used the strongest wording among the five deletion voters.

While you didn't mentioned anything about your background there in the discussion I see from your user page (where random people first visit on first interaction) that you have one user box (and its corresponding category) saying that you are professionally involved in Mathematics and another saying that you are a volunteer of the Wiki maths project. That is two user boxes related to things Maths among total 10. And no other delete voters have either of the two boxes up on their user page.

Today some text was added to the list (not by me) that being an invited speaker at an ICM is "the equivalent, in this community, of an induction to a hall of fame." which was published in Nature.

This wide discrepancy between a top scientific journal and an editor who claims professional expertise on their user page, compels me to question your competency on the subject matter. Solomon7968 18:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And your point is? That discussion is over. It was not just me supporting deletion, but the majority consensus for it. If you feel it was closed improperly there is deletion review but otherwise there is no point rehashing the debate. There is now a list? I had not noticed it until you pointed it out, but it seems a much better approach than a category. As for my expertise it is irrelevant. I do have a mathematics background but I have edited and even created articles which have nothing to do with mathematics. WP does not require editors to be experts in a field to edit articles on it, or participate in discussions on them.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, my point is when you claim you have a professional expertise about something you are taken more seriously if you weigh in on a debate relating to the subject matter. Among "majority consensus" only one and only you have claimed something such on user page. That discussion is over, yes, but my concerns lie. You were incompetent there (even when it fall under your expertise) and you were taken seriously. I don't want that to happen again. That's all. Solomon7968 19:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn’t claim any expertise in the discussion. But that discussion was not on mathematics content, but on WP polices, in particular those at Overcategorization. Again, if you think the discussion was incorrectly closed there is deletion review. Otherwise just drop it it, the discussion is over.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See my first message on your talk page just above. I even italicized the word didn't. I repeat Among "majority consensus" only one and only you have claimed something such on user page. And again the Drop link wasn't necessary. I did said That's all in end. Being professionally involved in something means you know the topic even if it is not mentioned in Wiki. You started the comment by "Not mentioned in any of the articles I looked at". I would have thought that someone who is professionally involved with maths would know what kind of honor constitutes a "hall of fame" in the discipline.


 * I repeat I don't want this error of yours to occur again. That's all. Solomon7968 19:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no error in my contribution, but the time to question it was then, a month ago. Now is too late. So drop it, this is not the place to re-open the discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Learn to read discussions (and edit summaries) before you reply to it. I have already dropped the issue, although my concerns lie. I doubt that you care but it took me (and others) a month to build the list, I would have opened discussion earlier otherwise. Solomon7968 20:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ARF6 gene page and RREB1
Hi thanks for noticing the page is currently broken. I am actively testing this page for implementation of wikidata items to the template. Please excuse the error for a few days as I am creating the correct links to the data. Julialturner (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Gene Articles ARF6 and RREB1
Hi there John, I noticed that you reverted ARF6 and RREB1 recently and wanted to give a little context. We (Gene Wiki Project) have been using these to test and demonstrate the conversion of the gene infoboxes to the use of data in wikidata. These genes were picked specifically because they are relatively obscure and receive very low traffic. The conversion is very nearly complete. It would be beneficial to our efforts if you could leave them up as we finish the conversion as they are very useful both for debugging and for anchoring discussions. If you are passionate that they remain untouched until the templates are error free we can try to work differently - but this would be a bit harder. One of the tricks here is getting the wikidata calls to work in a way that the template can be placed on the appropriate page and just work because of the interwiki link between the article and the associated item in wikidata. Its hard to test that without being on the article itself. Preview can clearly be used for debugging, but it is really handy to be able to point people at a live example. For more context about our work, please see Original Gene Wiki Portal and recent efforts in wikidata by the ProteinBoxBot. Thanks very much --Benjamin Good (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I found them listed on Category:Pages with script errors, and on looking at them both were badly broken. Not just the script error but the information box, possibly due to the error, was stretched across the whole page, badly distorted, covering the whole of the article content. I could not fix it by e.g. correcting parameters as the infobox has none, which also meant I had no idea whether or how to fix the template. So I removed it. I checked what links here for any discussions on wiki but could not find any.


 * There are many ways to do testing which don’t require rendering articles unreadable. Template preview is one. A sandbox page or testcases page is another. The property tag lets you specify a page other than the current page, which could be used temporarily for testing. Testing and reverting in a live article and using the old version as a reference is another. Or do it on a test wiki, such as test2, where you can copy templates, articles and any other content across.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you point me to more information on the property tag pattern you mentioned there? I am not familiar with this. --Benjamin Good (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See Wikidata. The example they give is: which gives , even here. It was added relatively recently, only a few revisions ago.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it, we are using that pattern from the lua module already. Allows you to test everything but the interwiki-link to wikidata.  Thought you were referring to something else.  As for things not being clear as far as editing infobox content coming from wikidata calls, I certainly agree.  If you come across patterns that we can apply that make that process smoother for would-be editors, I would be obliged if you could let us know.  --Benjamin Good (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your signature
Just a quick note to say your signature is clever. { — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding my way around rather than finding a directory first. This is how I found the link to where this is written, by clicking 'New section' for the first time. You may delete this immediately upon reading it. Is it a correct process for transferring information? If it is, then I may use the same process to contact people who've mentioned me in remarks recently. All is well and thank you for trying to educate me via that last email, but I did not find what you indicated. I'll work on it later.Sudaama90 (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elsevier Jack K. Hale Award
Hi. Thank you for raising the issue about the prominence of the award. I would agree that the award is certainly not major. One cannot put an entirely objective metric on these things, but I don't think it improper to say that it is of the same order as awards in applied mathematics given by SIAM (e.g. see ). However, being very recent, it has not received much exposure. The JDE is certainly a very well-respected journal (at least by those who work on differential equations, as I do) and Elsevier is a huge scientific publisher (so the award is quite real), but one could certainly argue that this alone does not warrant an encyclopedic entry. Stablenode (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the proposed deletion you can just remove the notice. Proposed deletion is meant for uncontentious deletions so if anyone disagrees or objects it is inappropriate and can be removed by the editor who objects. That usually leads to a deletion discussion, where editors can discuss the deletion and come to a consensus over whether the article is needed.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of my addition on the China page
Rather than just undoing my edit on the China page about water supply and sanitation infractructure, I would very much appreciate it if you could enter a discussion about it with me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:China#Information_about_water_supply_and_sanitation_infrastructure As I said there, water supply and infractructure is not primarily an environmental issue but it is primarily about providing access to services for people. Hence I disagree with your deletion. Can we at least talk about it on the talk page of the China article?EvMsmile (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. please see also my proposal about the template of country articles here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Suggestion:_Add_infrastructure_to_the_template

EvMsmile (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Public housing
Thanks for trying to help. The intent was given in August on the talk page.If you know a better way to achieve the objective discussed on the Council House talk page please make the corrections. Whats the problem: there have been mergers in the past- council estate, council estate and who knows what else. The correct title for the content is Public housing in the United Kingdom. The article is tagged with multiple problems, it is political dynamite and very UK specific. Within that page there is a sizeable portion of text that is needed in the Council House article that was part of a previous merger- and even more references in the edit history. What I need is to rename the article but to clone the edit history! I haven't time to do further edits to day so I will leave it to you to try your better method. (Last time I saw the Move tool in action- it took 3 weeks to pick up the pieces!)-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem was not with the page(s) contents but with the way the page was moved. It was moved incorrectly with a WP:Copy and paste move, so the page history was not moved at the same time. I see this has now been taken care of: . In future it would be better to use the move tool. If there are any problems, such as a redirect being in the way, then tag the redirect for speedy deletion to get it out of the way. If it is too complex to do without admin help then ask for admin help, on the talk page or on a relevant notice board.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Six Dimensional Space
Regarding your revert of my edit to Six-dimensional space, can we delete the Plücker section or agree to my version? The current information is wrong. See also my entry to the talk page. Aaichert (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)