User talk:John B123/Archive 7

adding short desciption
Hi John, I noticed you added the Short description template to several topics regarding Hanover, where I live. I am not sure what is the target of doing so - the problem is that we now have duplicate data both in Wikidata and in english Wikipedia. What is the concept? -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * - Hi Gerd. The "short description" is intended be a concise description of the subject for use in searches, particularly on mobile versions and the Wikipedia App. Its explained more fully at WP:SHORTDESC. The intention of the English WP is that all mainspace articles should have a short description eventually.


 * The guidelines for the content of the "short description" aren't precise and therefore open to interpretation. Generally, I import the description from Wikidata, but if that is particularly brief I add to it, for example, the Wikidata description for Antoniusstraße is "Street" which I expanded to ""Street in Aachen, Germany" (and then stupidly copied it over to Reitwallstraße - thanks for picking that up and correcting it).


 * Template:Short description doesn't seem to have a German equivalent. From that and from your comments, can I assume the German WP doesn't use short description? Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi John, thanks for your answer. I still do not understand how it works: When I enter "Eys" in the mobile app, I get "Town in Limburg, Netherlands" which is correct but I did not find this text neither in Wikidata nor can I find a "short description" template in the article?
 * I now have found WikiProject_Short_descriptions, and, sorry, I think it is a bad idea to copy the information instead of fixing it directly in Wikidata if it is not precise or otherwise bad. For this reason we do not use short description templates in German wikipedia. I do a lot of work in fixing descriptions in Wikidata. Okay, different approaches. But please tell me where the short text for the "Eys" article does come from? -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * - Hi Gerd. Your question got me puzzled for a while. As you point out, Eys doesn't have a short description and the English Wikidata description is "town in the Netherlands". I have Shortdesc helper installed, and when I view Eys, I have the option to import "Town in Limburg, Netherlands" as a short description. I was under the impression that Shortdesc helper imported the Wikidata description, which in most cases it does, however it get more complicated than that.


 * Looking at the javascript for Shortdesc helper, the description (if there isn't already one on the page) isn't drawn from Wikidata directly, but from Mediawiki. If there is a "local description" Mediawiki will deliver that rather than the Wikidata description. Certain infoboxes generate a "local description", including Template:Infobox settlement that is used on Eys. I assume what you are seeing on the app is from the "local description".


 * I take your point about keeping descriptions constant between Wikipedia and Wikidata. There is an option in Shortdesc helper to export to Wikidata (although not enabled by default), would you suggest I update the Wikidata description if I change it on Wikipedia? I'm not that conversant with Wikidata, is it a problem if the description isn't the same between different language versions? Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi John, thanks for your answer. Yes, I think it would be a good idea to always update the Wikidata description. Since no one speaks all languages, neither I nor anyone else can set or update all language descriptions there. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - Hi Gerd. I've managed to get "export" button to show so will update the Wikidata description if I change the "short description". Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Bablos939
User:Bablos939 appears to be a single agenda editor. All of his edits are about posting Chinese women with non-Chinese men on mixed marriage and prostitution articles while deleting information anout Chinese men with non-Chinese women. Recommend undoing all his edits. He is deleting massive amounts of sourced information giving false reasons and even changing sourced information to omit things or say things the sources don't say. It appears there's some kind of ethnic agenda or hatred going on and he's using wikipedia to push his war against Chinese.Buzinezz (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I found Montalk123 who is banned, Chinese-proti who is also banned and Tongolss looking at other revisions of page histories. They appear to be the same person as Bablos939 and make the same types of edits on Chinese interracial marriage and prostitution for over a decade. They also appear to all be from South Korea. He attacks people he perceives to be against Koreans and in his edits on marriage and prostitution he deletes information about Korean women involved in marrying foreigners and prostitution claiming it's "sexist" in broken English while he does the opposite for Chinese women. User:Bablos939 inserted google books links with .kr, South Korea's domain. All three were doing the same things.Buzinezz (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging and  as similar messages have been left on their talk pages. Also pinging.
 * - Bablos939 was indeed a pain, and with the possible exception of Interracial marriage, which I haven't looked at in depth yet, their edits seem to have been to add information on Chinese prostitutes in other country, often giving WP:UNDUE weight to this and distorting sources. Apart from the possible exception already mentioned, most of Bablos939's edits have been either reverted or modified to be acceptable. I can see no reason to revisit these as any issues caused by Bablos939 have been resolved. With regard to Interracial marriage, I'll have a more detailed look at that. --John B123 (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - I've had a look at Interracial marriage and all of Bablos939's edits have already been directly reverted or effectively reverted but subsequent evolution of the article. I would note that both Interracial marriage and Miscegenation are becoming unbalanced in that some countries have very detailed coverage whereas others just get a brief mention. Additionally, as the same content is being added to both articles, the articles are heading towards being effectively the same article with different headings. Your edits are constructive and well referenced, but you might want to consider creating child articles with the in-depth coverage and linking to those from the main articles, rather than enlarging articles further that are already WP:TOOBIG. --John B123 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (Replying here to keep discussion in one place.) Thanks for your message. There are certainly similarities in the editing behaviours of the accounts you mention, but as two are blocked, Tongolss stopped editing in 2017 and Bablos939 hasn't edited in nearly a month there isn't any ongoing disruption. The oldest account is Chinese-proti, who has evaded their block more than once; might I suggest that if either Tongolss or Bablos939 return to editing and you believe that all of these accounts are the same person, you file a report at Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti? SuperMarioMan (Talk) 10:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH
Where did you found any connection of this and this with the "Child prostitution" or "Child sexual abuse"? Source does not even support the content. The source is nowhere being specific about the victims being children, then why you see the requirement to misrepresent the source? The source has been badly misrepresented.

You agree that my removal was correct but you are trying to find a way to get through the content anyhow. This is not allowed per WP:SYNTH. The information has to be about "child prostitution" or "child sexual abuse" or else it is just POV pushing and original research. The source mainly talks about a village where girls work as prostitute as they outnumber boys. Can you consider reverting yourself on both articles now? NavjotSR (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In my view the source does support the content so the inclusion is valid. is pure conjecture on your part. --John B123 (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet you are clearly doing that instead of justifying your "view". I have reverted you now, consider starting discussion on talk page per WP:BRD. You should understand that this is a sensitive subject and we can't tolerate petty original research or WP:SYNTH. NavjotSR (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit-war or misinterpret WP:BRD, where the principle is that the page should remain as it was before the controversial edit. BRD cannot be used to keep the contested edit while any discussion takes place.
 * To be clear, I am not agreeing that your removal was correct as you keep stating. --John B123 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Emile
Hey there. I put in an edit request at Talk:Jonathan Emile and brought it to your attention as an autoreviewer to recently edit the article. If you could have a look, that would be greatly appreciated. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 08:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll have a look. --John B123 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Requested edits added. --John B123 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

New conundrum
Hello John, you helped me out with dual UK/US publications on Jozef Retinger. Thank you. Today's challenge is altogether different. I have just started a piece on Thomas Weld (of Lulworth), an 18th century philanthropist, and suspected bibliophile. The trouble is that one of his rarities is currently for sale on the AbeBooks website. It is a volume once owned by William Shakespeare and subsequently in the possession of Thomas Weld. How on earth do you put that in references without making it look like advertising? I have made it into a note, pro tem, but is there a neat way of making it valid? Thank you for any guidance.--Po Mieczu (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. A difficult one. Cite web would be better to use than cite book as it's the content of the webpage that is relevant not the content of the book, possibly using "quote=Two bookplates to front pastedown including 18th century ownership label of Thomas Weld, Britwell, Oxfordshire" within the citation. However, as links to booksellers are generally frowned on, you may find the link is changed by another editor without realising the significance. Adding it as a note, as you have done, is probably the best option. Personally I would separate the note from the other references using   and   . You may also wish to link to the specific page rather than the Ablebooks search results which may change when the book is sold. Whilst Ablebooks don't usually delete a book's page when the book is sold, it's possible there is a time limit on this. I've archived the page at archive.today. For future proofing, and also to avoid a bot or somebody using an "in source" search picking up a link to Ablebooks, I would use the link to the archived copy rather than the live copy. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

New message from Andrew nyr
Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 19:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Whitechapel_Murders".The discussion is about the topic Whitechapel murders. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Clone commando sev (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Change
Hey how did you make those changes yesterday to the TOC at the DRN? I do not see any edit links for anything on that page. Thanks, Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 16:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer


 * Hi. The edit is here. There were actually two separate issues. The first was that the table (which is part of the header) is floated left, which is what happens if you add |left| to an image. The TOC is also floated left. If you have two elements one after the other that are floated left, the 2nd element will float against the first if the screen is wide enough, which is why the TOC was appearing on the right.  resolves this (we don't want a full clear otherwise the TOC would be positioned below the archive box). This didn't work as the TOC was being inserted before the clear left, so I added   to precisely position the TOC.


 * The second problem was that "Current disputes" and "McLaren F1" are not very wide so were being pulled up with the TOC when collapsed. The following "Closed discussion" box is a full-width element so displays below the archive box, separating it from "Current disputes" and "McLaren F1". Adding the  after the TOC forces the headings back down to "Closed discussion" box. Hope that all makes sense! Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I meant where is the "edit" link to be able to make those changes? I do not see one. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I used the "edit" button in the tabs at the top of the page. --John B123 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey I saw that!!! However, I cannot edit the blue portion which is what I need to do. SMirC-whistle.svg Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 22:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking The blue part above the TOC is a header that's transcluded into the page: Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header --John B123 (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Bingo! Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 23:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Glad you got it sorted. --John B123 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC opened
An RFC has been opened at Talk:Whitechapel_murders as the DR has been closed as 'failed'. Please continue discussions there. Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

List of Volkswagen cite error
Hey, I see you've been working on the errors there, but I noticed that sometimes the fix removed information, for example: was changed to.

Not that I care, but just pointing out. Thanks. Feelthhis (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. The location field is not for full addresses but for the city of publication. Where a city is universally recognised, such as New York or Tokyo, then the city name is all that is required. In this case, most people probably don't know where Auburn Hills is, so adding Michigan is appropriate. (It can get more complicated than that, if there were two Auburn Hills in Michigan, then we would also need to add the county to distinguish between the two.) See Help:Citation Style 1 for further details. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia page
Hi... Please open the Wikipedia page for Lock Up 2020 Movie cast: Vaibhav Reddy, Venkat Prabhu and Vani Bhojan. Please open this page. I hope you open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:20B:A63C:4894:9103:6EC:AA53 (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Prostitution in Europe map
Hi John B123. I see you created the map image - File:Prostitution in Europe2.png. I was wondering if you could please help by editing/updating a variant of this map (File:Prostitution in Europe.svg)? Please see the post here - Graphics Lab/Map workshop/Archive/Apr 2020. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide. Helper201 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm not sure how that slipped through the net, I'll have a look. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation template location parameters
Hi John B123! Based on your edits to the Akhenaten article, could you explain to me what the difference is between the "location" and "publication-place" parameters in citation templates, such as Template:Cite journal? I want to make sure I'm using them correctly, but I didn't quite get the difference after reading the template documentation. --Kamocsai (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Historically on some templates, "publication-place" was, as the name suggests, the place the work was published, and "place" was where the work was written. On other templates there was just a single field "location". For backward compatibility to avoid users having to use different names for the same thing on different templates, most templates will now accept any of the three fields. "place" and "location" are aliases of each other so will cause an error message if they are both used in the same template. "Publication-place" is different field, but will behave the same as the other two on most occasions. Where there is both a "place/location" and a "publication-place", "place/location" will display before the title and "publication-place" after. (So a piece written by an American correspondent for The Times might appear as <>< ><><>).


 * Common practice is to use "location" unless you want to display both the place of writing and the place of publication. However, this is not written in stone and if you use one of the others it's not a problem. On a general note, with any of the three, you should only enter a city if universally known (London, Tokyo, New York etc) or a city and country where to city is less well known (eg Wonga Wonga, Australia). Additionally, if the work includes the location there is no need to add it as extra field (eg The New Times). Hope this helps. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for taking the time to write this, this is a great explanation! I really appreciate it. --Kamocsai (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Women and sex trafficking articles
Good job, John B123! Thank you for all your fixes and repairs on Cybersex trafficking, Sex trafficking in China, and other articles concerning sexual violence against women and girls. Your hard work and dedication are commendable and appreciated. - User:Wikipedianuhai 19:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks, your message is appreciated but you are the one who deserves the praise for creating and expanding the articles. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Smederevo fortress explosion
Hi. May I ask you to check grammar and translation in this article? -- Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  09:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll have a look. --John B123 (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - I've made a few changes to the grammars etc. It still needs more references. When you translate from another language Wikipedia you need to provide attribution - see WP:HOWTRANS. Regards --John B123 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. BTW, I created the article at sr.wiki almost 7 years ago. --<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Refimprove for Bavarian 1950 elections
Hey! I saw you put the 'citation needed' box on the top of the page I created. What are the things that need to be cited? (I'm assuming it's the actual electoral data?)

Diefreien (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes the data needs to be referenced, also "It is notable for featuring the worst performance of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria in any Bavarian election, only 27.4%, and for being the only Bavarian election in which the SPD won a plurality of the vote" needs a reference. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Gotcha, will do! Diefreien (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Jay Shambhu (2020 film) Remove from Draft to mainspace
Few minutes ago you have move this article in draft, but now it is ready for move main space. Please review again and move to main space. Thank You Pk41946 (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In re: Cantiauge Park
I saw on Cantiague Park you added a reference needed template or whatever it's called. Literally all of it I got from the Cantiauge Park official website which I linked at the end of the page. Can I delete it? NYCDOT (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. You need to add inline citations to the text. Additionally you need to add sources independent of the park. see Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it as is for now but will get to that later on in the week.

NYCDOT (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

HI~ I want to resolve the misunderstanding with you.
HI~ I know 'Buzinezz' came all the way here and cursed me. The substance of the user is as follows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buzinezz

Even now, he is making multiple IDs and cheating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:41.232.35.139

As I checked, that user has ruined Wikipedia for a long time.

He has been deliberately deleting 'the combination of Chinese women and foreign men'. He also falsely states the relationship between Chinese men and foreign women.

Let me give you an example.

A) The books say as follows only. 'There is anecdotal evidence that Chinese men in Cuba and Peru married or had sexual relationships with white,black,mulatto and Indian women' Alien Nation: Chinese Migration in the Americas from the Coolie Era Through ISBN 978 1 4696 1340 6 https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=ch8VBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=indian+coolie+woman+chinese+men&redir_esc=y&hl=ko#v=onepage&q=indian%20coolie%20woman%20chinese%20men&f=false 'the men(Chinese) had almost no contact with local women in Peru.' The Chinese in Latin America and the Caribbean https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=xrGShVU6VrgC&pg=PA143&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false'

He distorts the source, saying that hundreds of thousands of Chinese men have married internationally.

B)The books say as follows only. ''The few documented pairings of Chinese male owners with young Sogdian girls raise the question how often Sogdian and Chinese families intermarried. The historical record is largely silent on this topic, but Rong Xinjiang has found throughout Tang-dynasty China a total of twenty-one recorded marriages in the seventh century in which one partner was Sogdian, and in eighteen cases, the spouse is also Sogdian. The only exceptions are very high-ranking Sogdian officials who married Chinese wives. 67 He concludes that most Sogdian men took Sogdian wives, and we may surmise that the pairings between Chinese men and Sogdian women were usually between a Chinese male master and a Sogdian female slave.'

He distorts the source. He fantasizes that many Chinese men have married Western women.

On the other hand, he deletes academic materials that contain international marriages for Chinese women......

Most 'Interracial_marriage' are this way. He is involved in most documents featuring Chinese women

You told me about the neutral point of view. To be honest, I still don't know your strict standards. To be honest,There were a lot of things I was disappointed with you.

But by our standards, he is not writing Wikipedia, but writing a novel or lies !!

He keeps making IDs and damaging documents. My contribution to stopping him is bound to be biased.

You're an expert on Wikipedia expert. I hope you always stop him. I hope you will forgive me generously if I was rude.Bablos939 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not support racism. I want to talk about Bablos939 racist agenda. I've decided to intervened after this reading this thread about Bablos939. https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/wikipedias-anti-chinese-racist-bablos939-chinese-prostitutes-chinese-women.286753/#post-3137596

After analyzing Bablos939 contribution, I couldn't agree more. I take great offense on what appears to be blatant anti-Chinese actions for months. Indeed everything edited by Bablos939 are only related with Chinese women's prostition and Chinese women with non-Chinese men. I don't think it takes it a rocket genius to figure what he is trying to do. His motives are transparent and clear but yet he is allowed to continue with it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bablos939

I had read some of the heated discussion. I have no idea if this user is Korean or not, but him being a anti-Chinese is a ironclad guaranteed. I also do believe he is the same user as MaoMao4321 seeking justification to futher his agenda. Mz7 wrote this " From what I understand, Maomao123 is so far a single-purpose account that has only participated in the discussion in support of Bablos939. On that basis, I checked Maomao123 and Bablos939, and they are Possible to each other " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chinese-proti

I wish someone seriously takes a look of what he is doing because after checkit out the prostitution of New Zealand and Spain, and interracial marriage. I'm more convinced that his only main focus is to degrade Chinese women. 70.77.154.228 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

See also links in timeline article
Hi there! You seem to have been in a great hurry for your last edit at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019! Please review the article to note that the links you restored are duplicates of the links provided at top of page, through template. Sechinsic (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Equally, COVID-19 pandemic on social media is duplicated in the navboxes at the bottom of the page. The "See also" section is for related articles that the reader might be interested in. Sister articles about the timeline are far more likely to be of interest than social media handing of the pandemic. Given the large number of covid related articles, only having COVID-19 pandemic on social media in the "See also" section seems a random choice. --John B123 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. I wanted to know that you are aware of the fact that the wikilinks duplicate top of page. From this point on it seems to me there is only one rational choice to make, namely, not to have these duplicate wikilinks. I hope you can see this as well relevant for your observation that "sister articles are far more likely to be of interest" - as mentioned, wikilinks to the sister articles are already present, and quite well exposed, at the top of the page, even in a colourful eye-catching template. As for the choice of what specific link might be relevant, in the "See also" section, the wikilink to social media in the pandemic (COVID-19 pandemic on social media) seem to fit, both for being of specific relevance to emphasize the societal activity taking place the last two days in December, consequencing (probably) not only nationwide but worldwide attention to the incident in Wuhan, and as well for being one of those numerous COVID-19 related articles - so, sort of a sister article - and not just a wikilink to Social media. Your remark about this wikilink also being a duplicate got me curious, and I realise I've been in a hurry myself, and misread the wikisource. It is quite true, as you say, that these wikilinks - the list of links to timeline articles and also the link to COVID-19 pandemic on social media - appear in both of templates and, one located at bottom of page, the other at top of page. I hope we can skip general explanatory comments on function and role of template inclusions in article text, but excepting the important note that at top of page the template is expanded to show wikilinks to the timeline articles - .  Sechinsic (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - As pointed out by on his talk page, these links appear on all the "Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in ..." and "Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in ..." articles. As the arguments you put forward above would apply equally to those articles, it would seem your concerns are not shared by others. I'm sure there are arguments for many of the covid related articles being included in the "See also" section, but the one for COVID-19 pandemic on social media isn't compelling as most of the article is about events post-December. --John B123 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Third oppinion on 'Wikilinks in section "See also"'
I have requested a third oppinion, with a link to Talk:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019. Sechinsic (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:THIRD is for disputes between two editors, not three as in this case. --John B123 (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Newly created stub Fane (acoustics)
Barely have I created the article or the destructionists are already at their job! I am so fed up with this. If you really cared about the level of quality of WP, you would work on the stub to improve it. It you wish to remove it, have it your way. But I thought WP was a collective effort of creation - not of removal. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - If you followed procedures and created articles in your sandbox or in draftspace and only moved them to mainspace when they were ready then all this would been avoided. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't come with crystal balls, so there is no way of knowing what the creator's intentions are, whether the creator considers the article "finished", whether they intend to work on it further, or whether they abandoned their attempt to create an article. However, in view of and your edit summary  it seems you want to see an article on Fane but want others to do the work. --John B123 (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "want" is too big a word, but yes, I hoped for, and trusted in, the collaborative constructive spirit that I understand to be the fundamental resource of wikipedia. Not excluding that I'd work on it myself, but I thought it a good idea to invite common interest, as I feel sure many will be glad to add their bit of wisdom and insight. And no, I clearly did not consider the article as "finished" - as if any article ever were! - at the contrary I tagged it a stub - a clear invitation to improvement. Again, if you will have the NONconstructive approach prevailing, do have things your own way, I will not hinder you. If you prefer "procedures" over "progress", so be it. imho, a stub about this famous company is much better than nothing at all, the more so that all and sundry are welcome to improve on it, and have been explicitly invited to. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - Verifiability is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, and whatever your intentions that needs to be adhered to. Throwing insults at me doesn't alter that. --John B123 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No insults were intended, throwing even less. I only bring in my little effort to extend and improve our common knowledge, and resent negativism and blind adherence to procedures - there's too many civil servants already, no need to add them here. But it is obvious - not only from your side - that modest efforts are not wanted here, any more. Again, I'll not insist, have it your own way. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding "verifiability" (a crucial aspect indeed): what did I write that you found yourself unable to verify? Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not for the reader to find "verifiability", but for the editor to show it with references - see WP:PROVEIT --John B123 (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference has been offered, though scant. The stub is a minimum minimorum, and that was never hidden or excused. Why else do we have the concept of a "stub"? And you are putting yourself forward not as a reader but rather as an authority. If you are not content with a minimum minimorum, then improve on it, instead of applying principles and procedures. Or remove my effort altogether, at the peril of discouraging me from ever again trying or wanting to contribute. I have ceased caring by now. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no references at all in the article, just a link to the company's website. I have tried to explain to you that even "minimum minimorum" need to comply with the guidelines. If you can't accept that I'm sorry, but I've got better things to do with my time than argue with prima donnas. --John B123 (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, then stick with your guidelines (best stick them where the sun never shines) and get rid of one who once was an enthusiastic contributor. I will not be bothering you again. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)