User talk:John B123/Archive 5

I don't appreciate the snark
I get this is an educational program but your delivery is very disrespectful. I get it that what I did was not correct but please respect me as person thank you.


 * Perhaps if you hadn't ignored my earlier comments I wouldn't have to put it so bluntly. Ignoring those comments could also be viewed as disrespectful. Would you have preferred that rather than put things right it your edits I simply reverted them without comment? --John B123 (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

what comments?
Please direct me to the comments you are speaking of I was not aware. Again please refrain from being disrespectful towards me. Your response is not warranted. Your previous comments I did not see. So again please don't be rude. I have already reported thid to my teacher since you think I am being disrespectful. Thanks!


 * The comments were added here. As I pinged you in the edit you would have had a yellow highlighted "You have new messages" and a red square in the bell at the top of each page to make you aware that you had been mentioned. (see image here) Please tell your teacher I am happy to discuss the matter with them if they want. --John B123 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Grammar
You wrongly reverted my correction with regard to "the use of condoms". Yes, "condoms" is of course plural. BUT the "USE" is singular. Of course not only one condom is used by a million people. But the use is mandatory. Being a translator, language is my profession and I would NEVER misuse corrections to destroy texts.

In this case, my correction was necessary.

Royalrec (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. This may be due to different variants of English. In British English "are" is correct, I don't know enough about American English (or any other variant) to express if it should be "is" or "are". "The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by the same language" (usually attributed to George Bernard Shaw) may well be applicable here. --John B123 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you. You can say "Condoms are mandatory". That is correct. But if you refer to the USE of condoms: "The use is mandatory". That applies to all regional variants of English, and even in other languages, too. "The use of ---" is the subject here. Hence: "The use of condoms is mandatory". Greetings! Royalrec (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I still don't agree, but don't feel as strongly as you do about it so will revert the article back to your version. --John B123 (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

dead/unfit/usurped URLs
On an article, I changed two instances of "url-status=dead" to "url-status=unfit", for URLs that return "page not found".

You changed them back, with edit comment:
 * "Marked urls as dead"

I changed them again (as a revert), with an explanation:
 * "Marking the unfit URLs "unfit". The defaultvalue of url-status, "dead", does not hide the useless URLs. These dead URLs are not "usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising" ("usurped"), but they are "otherwise unsuitable" ("unfit"). So "unfit" is correct and complies with {cite web}."

Clearly we have different understandings. You changed them back, with edit comment:
 * "Marked URLs as dead because they are dead and returning 404 errors. They are not live but spammy, in which case "unfit" would be appropriate."

You did not answer or rebut my explanation; you just repeated your initial comment. (And the second sentence is confusing. First, I have to re-punctuate it: "They are not live-but-spammy, in which case "unfit" would be appropriate." Yes, the website is "live", but the pages are broken ("dead"). And a URL that delivers spam is actually "usurped", according to the documentation at cite web.)

I was about to change them again (as a revert). This started as an edit comment, but it's too complex. It started as this:

Your edits keep making useless URLs back into clickable links. That does not improve Wikipedia. If "dead" would simply hide the worthless dead URLs, I would never bother disambiguating "dead" into "usurped" or "unfit". But the legacy/default-value "dead" doesn't hide the URL; only "usurped" and "unfit" do. A URL that doesn't return the cited content surely is "unfit". A "usurped" URL returns something especially undesirable.

I think I already explained how I understand the nearly worthless instructions at cite web. Can you show me why you think it is wrong to mark a URL that is not fit (but is not replaced with spam) as "unfit"? Or why "dead" is somehow more appropriate?

It is detrimental to Wikipedia users to show them links to broken URLs. Yet people have set bots to make thousands of changes, marking useless (broken) URLs as "dead", which make Wikipedia show the URLs as clickable links. Something has to change. (This is bigger than just us. Where does one dispute the definition and function of a parameter, where almost everything is locked down by specialists?)

The url-status= values need clear definitions and/or repair.

The documentation does not even define "dead", but that does not leave us free to pick a definition. Since a URL until recently could only be "dead-url=yes" or not, every inherited instance of "url-status=dead" is in a catch-all classification; someone found the URL to be dead ≡ broken ≡ unfit; whether it was domain-not-found, 404, other content, "squatter" spam site, or malware server; but did not record the reason. The definitions at cite web say "usurped" applies to URLs that have been re-used for advertising or spam, and "unfit" applies to [broken] URLs that are "otherwise unsuitable" (all the other reasons). I say new entries should be filled with "unfit" or "usurped", never "dead". I say old values of "dead" can be disambiguated to "usurped" or "unfit" as the case may be. Why would anyone change the specific case of "unfit" to the general case of "dead"?

The value "dead" is the default, but most explicit "url-status=dead" entries were translated from ancient "dead-url=yes" parameters that were added to broken URLs. But then things got weird. They seem to now want to distinguish between "unfit" and "usurped" (but they forgot to make clear explanations of what they exactly mean and when to use them). Every legacy value of "dead" stays that way by default because no determination was made whether they were "unfit" or "usurped" at they time they were flagged, and no one wants to disambiguate them now, because it needs testing of millions of broken URLs. (I think "usurped" is mostly expected to be applied by bots when an entire website becomes blacklisted.)

There is more than one way out of this. Either of these solutions will fix my objection. (Both would be better.)
 * 1) If "url-status=dead" would simply hide the URL, just like "url-status=usurped" and "url-status=unfit" hide the URL, it will no longer matter to me what "url-status=dead", "url-status=usurped", and "url-status=unfit" mean, or what you or anyone thinks they mean.
 * 2) If the documentation would simply explain what "dead", "usurped", and "unfit" really mean, and how they should be used, that will enable editors to do what is correct. Naturally, I believe that any effort to clarify leads only to my conclusions.

The bigger problem might be that many pages got archive-url added, without adding dead-url=no. In this case there is no record of whether the old URL was live or dead st the time. These really should be treated as "url-status=unknown", and both URLs should be links. That conflicts with #1, above. If an explicit "url-status=dead" hides the URL, then the default handling ("url-status=" or not specified at all) must also be changed to show both URLs.

With this kind of possible confusion, editors are not merely at cross purposes undoing each other's efforts, but possibly destroying information and making Wikipedia into a vast garbage pile. A correct understanding must be defined, so that everyone can follow it. If misunderstandings have caused damage, effort is needed to correct the problem where possible, and accept the losses and make the best of the situation. The false economy of leaving crappy documentation could be paying off in a massive misdirection of effort, loss of opportunity, and loss of value. - A876 (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. This hasn't occurred since |deadurl was depreciated in favour of |url-startus earlier this year. |deadurl had the same four values: live, dead, unfit & usurped and behaved in the same manner.


 * The value "usurped" should be used when content on the target page has been changed, for example, an announcement on the front page of a site may be there this week but not next week, so usurped indicates a snapshot at a particular time. The link to the current page is not displayed to prevent someone looking at the wrong version and marking the ref as "failed verification". Usurped can also be used where the content of the page has been replaced with spam, advertising, porn, etc. Although the url is still "live", the original content has been replaced and the link to the page is suppressed.


 * Where a live linked page contains spam, advertising, porn, etc then "unit" can be used, which also suppresses the display of a link to the page to protect readers. Additionally, as Google places some value on links to a page from Wikipedia, it also helps prevent a spammy page getting a good position in Google search results. (In practice, "usurped" and "unfit" are used interchangeably).


 * Setting |url-status to "live" is pretty self-explanatory.


 * "Dead" is for occasions when the site is no longer there or that particular page is no longer there, usually returning a 404 error. "Usurped" or "unfit" should not be used in these circumstances. This is specifically explained at Category:CS1 maint: unfit url:

"The keywords unfit and usurped are intended to identify original urls that point to live sites that are inappropriate: spam, advertising, porn, etc. A url that returns a HTTP 404 error is not considered to be unfit and, in such cases, editors should set"


 * I agree there is no point in having a link to a dead page, but I don't expect many people click on the link in "archived from the original", so don't see it as a major issue. Certainly "usurped" or "unfit" should not used to suppress the display of the link when it is dead. If you want to change the way citations work, ie make |url-status=dead suppress the link to the original page, then I would suggest starting a discussion on Help talk:Citation Style 1. --John B123 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That cite (documentation for the hidden tracking category Category:CS1 maint: unfit url) is a piece of the puzzle, giving specific directions that advocate your actions.

You are completely incorrect that "|dead-url had the same four values: live, dead, unfit, & usurped, and behaved in the same manner." (Actually, "dead-url" accepts 3 old values, plus only 2 of those 4 new values.) The documentation said that the category lists pages where  ∈ [,  ] and, incidentally,   ∈ [ ,  ]. For most (if not all) of its existence,  accepted only [,  ,  ]. (I have seen no others.) Deprecated  currently accepts only [,  ,  ,  ,  ]; it rejects [ ,  ]. Bots have already purged every instance of "dead-url=" from Wikipedia, replacing "dead-url=yes" with "url-status=dead"; "dead-url=no" with "url-status=live"; and (in effect) "deadurl=anythingelse" with "url-status=anythingelse". Mention of the deprecated and purged "dead-url" borders on moot. The 4 values [, ,  ,  ] are recent, added along with the new parameter "url-status", or not long before it.

I see a few problems with Category:CS1 maint: unfit url and its documentation:
 * Almost no one ever sees the documentation for this hidden tracking category. That also makes it less likely to be maintained.
 * The directions there are unsourced.
 * The directions there are incomplete. They don't explain the parameter or point to any "root" explanation, guideline, or intent. They don't resolve for me the possible contradiction of the highly visible documentation of {Template:cite web}. (I plan to parse Help:Citation Style 1.)
 * There is no separate category for "url-status=usurped", e.g. Category:CS1 maint: usurped url; instead, this one category lists "unfit" and "usurped" together (8,394 pages). That conflation might deserve justification. The documentation doesn't explain which means what, thus hinting that they might be equivalent. (I remain convinced that they are not, or at least were not originally (Occam's Razor and {Template:cite web}), and should not. They do the same thing, but no one said they are same thing.)
 * There is no category for "url-status=dead", e.g. Category:CS1 maint: dead url, though it probably would be even less useful than this one.
 * There is a category for "url-status=bot: unknown", Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (24,114 pages).
 * There is no other "url-status"-related category in the 29 categories with "prefix:Category:CS1 maint:". -A876 (talk)


 * - |dead-url= replaced |deadurl= in December 2014 and initially had one value of "no". (If empty or missing then it was assumed to be "yes"). In September 2015 the values |deadurl=yes |deadurl=unfit and |deadurl=usurped were added (|deadurl=y and ||deadurl=true were also added as aliases of |deadurl=yes), see old documentation . |url-status= was introduced in September 2019‎, 4 years after the added values were added to |dead-url=.


 * I don't know why you think it's incorrect that |url-status= and |dead-url= don't have the same values and act in the same way. Using the same "cite web" but changing the |url-status= and |dead-url= (and changing two values as needed):


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * rowspan=2| Identical except for error message || url-status=live ||
 * dead-url=no ||
 * rowspan=2| Identical except for error message || url-status=dead ||
 * dead-url=yes ||
 * rowspan=2| Identical except for error message || url-status=unfit ||
 * dead-url=unfit ||
 * rowspan=2| Identical except for error message || url-status=usurped ||
 * dead-url=usurped ||
 * rowspan=2| Identical except for error message || url-status=bot: unkown (sic) ||
 * dead-url=bot: unkown (sic) ||
 * }
 * dead-url=unfit ||
 * rowspan=2| Identical except for error message || url-status=usurped ||
 * dead-url=usurped ||
 * rowspan=2| Identical except for error message || url-status=bot: unkown (sic) ||
 * dead-url=bot: unkown (sic) ||
 * }
 * rowspan=2| Identical except for error message || url-status=bot: unkown (sic) ||
 * dead-url=bot: unkown (sic) ||
 * }
 * }


 * On a side note, a lot of pages were changed manually from |dead-url= to |url-status= by many editors before the bot was introduced, and not every instance has been changed, see Politics of India for example.


 * In conclusion: 1. |dead-url and |url-status work in exactly the same way; 2. "unfit" and "usurped" were in use for 4 years before |url-status= was introduced a few months ago. --John B123 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I expected you would move past the incidental mention of your misstatement and get on to the real items. Instead you devoted a reply to making me wrong, while ignoring the rest. You are completely incorrect that "|dead-url had the same four values: live, dead, unfit, & usurped, and behaved in the same manner." They only behave the same if you use different values. "|dead-url" rejects "live" and "dead", accepting instead "no" and "yes". (To be perfectly explicit about this, "no" ≠ "live", and "yes" ≠ "dead". It's that deep.) Also, both accept "bot: unknown", making 5 values. (5 ≠ 4.) Somehow you mis-entered "bot: unkown" (sic) [corrected below], causing MediaWiki to indicate "Invalid |url-status=bot: unkown" (sic), as if to make a liar of me, notwithstanding my mention of a hidden tracking category that tracks "bot: unknown". You could have looked at any of the 24,114 pages in that category and seen "bot: unknown" in use, but no, you didn't give my statement a proper try. (In the absence of proofreading-and-correction, copy-and-paste would have worked nicely.) Each parameter accepts 5 values, only 3 of which are common. So you got the first thing at least half-wrong ("dead-url" ≠ "url-status" and 5 ≠ 4); after I told you about it, you told me I have it wrong and you have it right (except that you still have it wrong) and, on top of that, in showing that I got something else wrong ("url-status=bot: unknown"), you got that wrong too. I am dense, but I have detected a pattern. You "correct" statements that are already correct.

In conclusion: 1. |dead-url and |url-status work substantially differently; 2. At [Help:Citation Style 1], deadurl was added in October 2011; "usurped" was added in August 2017; and "url-status" demoted "dead-url" in September 2019. So "deadurl"/"dead-url" was in use for 5.8 years without "usurped" (as I said, most of its existence) and 2.1 years with "usurped". (At [Template:Cite web/doc], "deadurl" was added on 2011-06-23; "usurped" appears to have been added on 2012-02-15, but this is because the addition of {csdoc|syntax}, which pulls in the latest instructions, [Template:Citation Style documentation], which pulls in [Template:Citation Style documentation/doc] - old versions of which have a "template loop", which I refuse to chase further.)

"url-status" is valid. "urlstatus" is not a synonym because it is invalid. (Not shown. Trivial to test.)

Now I'm still trying to sort how the instructions for a hidden tracking category, with no citation, outweigh instructions for citations, and how things it kind-of implies become fact. If you don't recognize the half-baked confusion that I have documented, see the need for clarification and proper documentation, or have a feel for where they are really documented or how to report and correct the situation, I'll have to figure out who does. - A876 (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's regarded as extremely bad practice to edit other peoples comments, see WP:TPO.


 * |dead-url=yes and |url-status=dead both use the same value but a different syntax. ie the value is "the page is no longer there to be viewed". I have better things to do with my time than to argue over semantics.


 * You have come on my page unsure about the use of "dead", "usurped" and "unfit". I have done my best to clarify this for you and offer what advice I can. I'm sorry if you don't like what I've said, but that's your choice. I had nothing to do with deciding how |deadrl= or |url-status= was to work, coding the changes or writing the documentation, but have just tried to explain how it works. If you are going to continue with your aggressive and argumentative manner, then please don't comment further on my talk page. --John B123 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Some sort of a category for victims of forced prostitution
Dear John,

thank you for your edits on Nordic Model approach to prostitution including the infobox. I was contemplating whether in the task force sex work there would be a possibility to establish a category on prominent victims of forced prostitution. This would for example include women like Virginia Guiffre. Or Regina Louf. Do you think this would make sense? Because unless the victims go on to publish books and become authors their only notoriety comes from the public allegations they make and the consequences of those. (For example for Prince Andrew in the UK). But still them having a voice and their own pages on Wikipedia is important to fight forced prostitution. Let me know what you think.-- Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   12:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. I can't see any reason why there shouldn't be such a category, say Category:Victims of forced prostitution. As you touch on, individuals would need to comply with Notability to have their own pages. Any that wouldn't pass the notability criteria could be included in a blanket article, say Notable victims of forced prostitution. Another alternative would to include them in an article about an event, such as the Aylesbury child sex abuse ring. Playing devils advocate, there may be some opposition in the case of minors in that they have been talked into it rather than forced (not my view, but from previous experience diverse opinions crop up and the people involved are convinced they're right). It might be wise to preempt this by having say Category:Victims of underage prostitution for minors. If you need any help let me know. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi {ping|John B123}}, thanks for the response. I created the categories Category:Victims of forced prostitution and Category:Victims of underage prostitution. Surely Victims of underage prostitution should be a subcategory of Victims of forced prostitution. I'll scan through more pages to find more people that would be suitable for the category. As your an expert, maybe you could also be of help with that. Aside from that I was wondering whether there could be a notability criteria for victims of forced prostitution as for example Virginia Roberts Guiffre is almost exclusively known for that but a very notable person despite not having published books on her experience or having founded a large victim advocate organisation. What would your opinion on that be? Aside from that I'm trying to conduct a survey on how opinions on prostitution are formed - https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/79JWR5L. Do you think that could be posted somewhere on the portal to elicit responses? Best regards, --  Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   14:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. The categories look fine. I've added some parent categories and will look for other articles for inclusion. There is a current movement to remove special criteria for notability in favour of the general notability criteria, for example, WP:PORNBIO for pornographic performers, was recently deleted. To get a special criteria for victims of forced prostitution would be very difficult to get approved by consensus. Looking at the Epstein victims, there is probably sufficient coverage to establish under notability WP:BASIC, but may fall foul of WP:SINGLEEVENT. There may be arguments against "single events", for example The Courtney Wild Crime Victims’ Rights Reform Act being named after Courtney Wild. Each victim would need to considered individually.
 * There are rules against using mainspace pages for "promotion". Whist your survey isn't for commercial gain or to push a particular viewpoint, it would still be regarded as promotion. Talk pages are more relaxed, so it might be worth posting a link on Talk:Prostitution. You may wish to change the some of the wording in the survey to be more neutral. I would avoid "prostituting oneself out" and "buying prostitutes" as they are seen as abolitionist terms. Regards --John B123 (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

B. R. Ambedkar
Your verion had errors as well. The version which I restored was rid of the misleading edits by this sock farm. You can as usual fix the errors but you don't have to restore his version for that. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thats not the way it works. If you want to remove content then you need to do it manually, without removing subsequent edits by other editors. I spent 25 minutes getting rid of errors yesterday, I shouldn't need to do that again because it's easier for you to restore an error-ridden version rather than remove what you consider misleading edits. I would also draw your attention to WP:BRD. If you make an edit and it is reverted then you should discuss it not simply change it back. --John B123 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * By restoring same problematic content two times now, you are actually taking responsibility of all the misleading edits made by the socks. Are you sure about it? You would need to be the one to provide the correct reason to restore these problematic edits on talk page instead of just linking to an essay "BRD". Shashank5988 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I Have no objection to you manually removing any of the content that you think is dubious. If there is any responsibility here, it is yours for not carrying out the removal in the correct manner. --John B123 (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why you are linking to WP:BRD if you don't want to take responsibility of the violation of WP:FORK, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:GALLERY, WP:NLIST and more? You could simply go ahead and fix the errors on the version which I have restored. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should I have to spend another half hour putting the errors right that I'd already fixed because you can't be bothered to make the effort to remove only the content you question and not subsequent legitimate edits? --John B123 (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which errors you are objecting? Only CS1/cite errors or there are others too? Shashank5988 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which errors you are objecting? Only CS1/cite errors or there are others too? Shashank5988 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 10 bare references converted to citations plus 92 cite and CS1 errors: Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (79 occurrences), Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (2 occurrences), CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (2 occurrences), Missing or empty |title= (1 occurrence), CS1 maint: archived copy as title (4 occurrences), CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (2 occurrences), . Cite journal requires |journal= (1 occurrence) and first= missing |last= (1 occurrence). --John B123 (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

see this116.72.233.32 (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Loi Sarkozy


Hello, John B123. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Loi Sarkozy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Hi John - Please see Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which includes my apology for jumping the gun. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark. No problem about changing it, nothing is really right or wrong when it comes to short descriptions. I've replied more fully on the talk page. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh
Dear John B123. Yesterday you edited the article Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh replacing the "publication-place" parameter with the "location" parameter on the "Citation" template. I looked up Template:Citation. This parameter is still supported. Why did you change it? I have the impression you use some tool that does this replacement. I admit to being a novice and nowhere near you in experience, numbers of edits, and number of articles created. Should I in future always prefer "location" over "publication-place" and change it wherever I find it? How could I have known? Wikipedia is quite a learning curve. With many thanks! Johannes Schade (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Johannes. Yes Wikipedia can be very confusing and as you point out, it's a steep leaning curve. Both "publication-place" and "location" are acceptable. Don't worry too much about with one you use, both are fine. I use Citation expander to clean up citations, which is a very useful tool. The change was made by the tool rather than by my personal choice. I assume it prefers location as that is probably more familiar to people as it is used on the various cite templates (cite web, cite book etc). Feel free to leave me a message if you are unsure about anything else. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear John B123. Thank you for your kind reply. I will follow your advice and consider these two as equivalents. Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you help
Hello sir, can you save this source and make something to add in the article of Ehsan Sehgal, I saw you improve it. I know nothing nor I will stay here, please help me improve the article, thanks. https://pakchronicle.com/2020/01/06/sufferings-of-a-dutch-pakistani-poet-writer-journalist-ehsan-sehgal/?fbclid=IwAR2dDbAWLV-Tdszz1UxPuV3sCL4Aau7u7ww3jyRIbuKa_LsGFTuXl3QFGQ4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.208.220 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look. --John B123 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please help to fix proper things
Please help to fix proper things and sources and move to main place this article,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zarb-e-Sukhan_(Kulliyaat). Thanks.Mediateamnews (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've given it a bit of a tidy-up, added some Wikilinks and sorted out the references. There's not much I can do to speed up the approval process unfortunatly. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Abel Azcona
Hi John, thank you so much for caring and helping me. As you said, it was hard and it seemed like many people didn't want the page to turn out well. Still, after many hours of work the page is nearly finished. In the last few days many users have helped improve the language aspect, like the template requested. On my end, I can understand the page perfectly, but I'm not a native speaker, and that's why I would like to ask you one last favor, to read the entire page and see if you can understand it well since your English is native. Thank you again. ;) Lolay1983 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Although English is my first language, my language skills are not that good, but I'm happy to do what I can. I've made a start on the article and will continue tomorrow. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I can see a huge difference already. Lolay1983 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Really appreciate the work, thank you very much for the effort. Is the English of the whole page correct now? Can the template be removed?Lolay1983 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, no problem. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to look at it yesterday so am going through it at the moment. --John B123 (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

hi John B123 - Question on Citations
hi, seeking your guidance on two citation questions. I noticed on the goldman sachs page you recently updated the citations changing |publisher=New York Times to |work=New York Times. Should |work be used for the name of the specific news publication? Separately I noticed that you updated the citations for the Wall Street Journal with ''|journal=The Wall Street Journal. Eastern Edition''. When check a couple of those articles on the WSJ I couldn't find any mention of the articles being the Eastern Edition. Can you please share where you are seeing that. Thank you, WestportWiki (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Strictly speaking |work=, or its aliases |journal=, |newspaper=, |magazine=, |periodical= as appropriate, should be used for the specific publication. Taking Wall Street Journal as an example, it is one of a number of titles published by News Corp, although we don't normally go into the citation in such depth, we could include |work=Wall Street Journal and |publisher=News Corp. That said, it's not the end of the the world if you use |publisher=Wall Street Journal.
 * I used Citation bot for the edit where "The Wall Street Journal. Eastern Edition" was added. Looking at the webpage and also the page source, I can't find any reference to "Eastern Edition" either. I do know there are different versions of the Wall Street Journal, including European and Japanese versions. Pure guesswork, but if the Wall Street Journal's online site determines you location from your IP and serves up the area-specific version, then a request from Citation bot from Wikipedia's server in Virginia may bring up an Eastern version which the bot records? If you want to delete the "Eastern Edition" from the citations, then I don't see that as a problem. Sorry I couldn't give you a more definitive reply. Regards --John B123 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * hi, I really appreciate how detailed and helpful your reply is; thank you. WestportWiki (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Julia Bulette
You're exactly right! and I completely forgot about steampower or even hand-pumped with dual row levers, as in England.

Thanks.Koplimek (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem. I did remove "fire engine" from the caption to avoid any ambiguity. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of red-light districts; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – bradv  🍁  22:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Please self-revert this edit, as you have exceeded 3RR in the last 24 hours, plus 3 more from 2 days ago. – bradv  🍁  22:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also ask you not to edit war and to comply with WP:BRD not simply change the text back to what you think it should be. I find your actions unnecessary as the problem you perceived has already been addressed by the addition of a reference specifically calling the Oxford Road area a red-light district. --John B123 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

CS1 errors and date ranges
Re your change here: CS1 does support month ranges, albeit with an en dash rather than a hyphen. Simply removing the second month is not a correct way to resolve the error. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. --John B123 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Dulcie Markham
Per this edit - I don't object to this particular revert because Markham was alive so long before the terminology was adopted and that's largely reflected in source usage, but "sex worker" is used particularly widely and "prostitute" considered particularly offensive in Australia/New Zealand (as opposed to the US and to a lesser extent British perspectives that seem to pop up a lot on Wikipedia) so I'd be extremely careful about making those kinds of edits on anyone much more recent. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. As you know, I tried to get some guidance at the Village Pump after disagreement on various article as to terminology. Although there was no consensus as such at the VP, the general gist was that there many different variables so no hard and fast rule could be made. As you point out, in Australia "sex worker" is the common term, whereas in neo-abolitionist countries such as Sweden "sex-worker" is not used as it is thought to legitimise prostitution. There are also many other viewpoints favouring either "sex worker" or "prostitute". Since that discussion at the VP, I have reverted changes to the terminology with the edit summary "Please discuss on talk page" in the hope a discussion being started on the talk page to a get a consensus of the right terminology in that particular article taking all the aspects into consideration, rather than articles being changed to suit an individual editor's view that one term or another should always be used. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hakim Ziyech
Hi. I was unable to find a way of quickly reverting the unsourced changes and additions made at Hakim Ziyech before your changes so yours were lost in the process of restoring an earlier revision of the article. Sorry! Robby.is.on (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, no problem. I've run the scripts again. --John B123 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Good. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll have a look. --John B123 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi John B123. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

Cite errors
I'll be more careful next time and check if I left any cite errors. Thanks. --Bageense(disc.) 22:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Threats
Please stop threatening me for putting facts that you do not like vis a vis the operation attila and Cyprus. You do not live in the country and clearly have no idea what you are editing and you clearly go by majority rule not facts.

According to the UN, the conflict in 1974 ended via the means of a ceasefire armistice as shown here:

https://unficyp.unmissions.org/supervision-cease-fire

If you continue to threaten me for writing the truth and not majority rule I will report you and please read up on things before you undo writings because you may not know something. Remember, its never a bad thing to ask and look around. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Chauvinist (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have made no threats towards you. Having lived in Cyprus for a number of years I think I do know what I am talking about. I don't see how the occupation of 37% can be seen as anything but a Turkish victory. Feel free to report me to whoever you want. --John B123 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@John B123 So to clear this up, you claim to have lived in Cyprus yet you say that it was "37%" of the island yet it was only 33% (Given that Cyprus is a small island you would know that 4% can be all the difference)? Adding on to that can you then explain why its a turkish victory if their forces tried to capture the island as they had said to the British BBC whilst giving a time frame "We can take the whole island in hours" but only got 33% not because they had won their way through but because the Cypriot government (which at the time was facing a coup as well) had told Cypriot LOK forces to pull back from Pentathaktilos (The 1st mountain range you come across when invading from turkey). Additionally, if you could explain to me how when a whole special operation done by turkey fails and 25% of their air force is destroyed not by soldiers but by armed private citizens is a victory then, by all means, tell me because that is usually considered a horrible defeat. Finally when trying to say I put my POV at least don't delete articles that literally came from the UN which showed that in fact it wasn't a turkish victory but a ceasefire armistice as defined by the UN when I have put the webpage as well (I will detail it below). I ask that you refrain from trying to call others out on writing POV things when what you undo my statements to are complete misinformation or half-truths.

Here is the UN page:

https://unficyp.unmissions.org/supervision-cease-fire

And one article from the NY times:

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/23/archives/un-reports-cyprus-ceasefire-turks-assert-they-will-remain-internal.html

Here is an interview of someone who was actually behind enemy lines as one of the Commandos (LOK) at the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBiKsHhSP9I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Chauvinist (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Northern Cyprus is "3,355 km2" big, Cyprus is "9,251 km2" including British dependencies (254km2) and TRNC. 33% percent of makes "2970km2". Are you trolling? Beshogur (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 37% of 9,251 km2 is 3,423 km2, by my maths. The TRNC occupies 36.2% of the Island (3,355/9,251 x 100%). Most Greek Cypriots consider "occupied area" as the area they have lost, so include the buffer zone and Famagusta, bringing the percentage up to 37%.


 * The UN link above is mainly about the previous fighting in the 1960s, not the 1974 invasion. I don't see how the North still being occupied 46 years later can be seem as anything but a victory for Turkey. Your preferred wording of "Greek Cypriots repel the attack" infers that the Turkish forces were expelled from the island which is not the case. The loss of aircraft is irrelevant in terms of victory. --John B123 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I wrote 37% accidentally. Beshogur (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@John B123 Its the basic concept of, if you try invading 100% of an island, and you only get 33% and to push it to your standards 37% of an island (Although most of Famagusta is still part of the unoccupied territory), by sheer logic only taking 33% of your objective is not a success nor a victory (Especially an island as small as Cyprus) yes there is a de facto state but even that isn't even directly controlled by turkey and by that same logic pre '74, there were turkish people living in certain towns in the southern part of Cyprus (More of a percentage than the Greek population in the area) to which on the day of the invasion (atilla 1 I believe), the 361st Infantry Battalion of the Cypriot National Guard immediately took those towns from turkish control. If my wording is an issue I will gladly change it but calling it a turkish victory is far from accurate. You don't consider the Korean war to be a North Korean or South Korean victory, nor the conflict between Israel and Palestine although that one is a lot more decisive than this. The best conclusion that can best fit this whole issue is a military stalemate or as the UN knows it, a ceasefire armistice. If it pleases you I can by all means change it to a military stalemate or something like that but all I ask is that you don't keep something that is just wrong as a fact. If my wording was the issue, I apologise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Chauvinist (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I could understand your logic, and agree with it, if the intent of the Turks was to occupy the whole island, but it wasn't. Prior to independence from Britain in 1960, the Greek Cypriots had wanted unification with Greece on independence but the Turkish Cypriots wanted the island divided into two separate countries, one Greek, one Turkish. A compromise was reached whereby the country remained united and power was shared between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. This broke down in 1963 and fighting broke out. The UN intervened, a ceasefire was agreed and a buffer zone (the Green Line) implemented, separating the two factions. Relationships broke down again in 1967 and Operation Attila was planned by Turkey, to occupy the island north of the buffer zone and set up a separate state. Threats by the US to intervene against Turkey if they invaded stopped the planned invasion. Following the coup in Cyprus in 1974 which intended to unite Cyprus with Greece, Operation Attila was resurrected by Turkey and they invaded. The Turk's objective was not to occupy the island completely, but the area north of the buffer zone and to then set up a Turkish Cypriot state. The Turks fully achieved their objectives. The invasion was more akin to the Mexican–American War, when the US occupied Texas (then part of Mexico), but had no intention of occupying the rest of Mexico, than Korea where the objective was to occupy the whole country. --John B123 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Given that they said they aimed to take the island within hours though, the argument that they only wanted up to where the original ceasefire was agreed upon kind of becomes obsolete, I'm not sure if you still live in Cyprus but if you go on RIK there is the documentary about '74 where you can see the british reporter (BBC) saying turkeys aims were to capture the island in hours and you could see the air raids happening way past the green line, there were also firefights happening past that as well. Here is the Ledra hotel firefight which is now part of the buffer zone but in '74 was past the North of the Buffer zone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv9dVqvYtVo In fact, the assault went so far as to try taking dhekelia and almost turned on their british allies who have a base there (Even to this day) which is literally Larnaka and beyond the buffer zone by 7 KM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Chauvinist (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That is in conflict with the Cyprus Government's official line as told at the visitor's centre overlooking Famagusta etc. One of the points they bring out is that the Turks intended to occupy 1/3 of the island, but actually occupied 37%. See also From Pragmatism to Idealism to Failure: Britain in the Cyprus crisis of 1974, where it is clear from material archived in July 74 the that the objective in the 2nd invasion would be to occupy about a 1/3 of the island with 48 hours. It is also clear that they intended to occupy more than the 1/3 initially and give the extra area back as part of the ceasefire agreement. --John B123 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

edit warring ?
Dear JohnB123 Hello I have a question. News data is reliable data on prostitution. I just presented the news material, but the other party deleted it first. Why do you delete the data first without blocking the other person's deletion?Bablos939 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. The principle involved is explained at Bold, Revert, Discuss. If someone changes the content of an article and some else disagrees with it, they revert the change. It should then be discussed on the talk page. ie the page should go back to how it was before the changes were made until agreement is reached on the talk page. --John B123 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)