User talk:John Crowfoot

John Crowfoot, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=666291268 your edit] to Vladimir Bukovsky may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom Kahn (left, an assistant to AFL–CIO President George Meany) and Theodore Bikel right, President of the Actors' Equity Association.

A barnstar for you!
Judgment in Moscow needs Index of names and Chronology of key events in the addenda to the book otherwise the book will be perceived as a fiction, you know. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The book has an elaborate Index and contains a total of 700 notes, primarily linking documents cited or mentioned in the text to the online Bukovsky Archives. The Chronology of events is in the works. If you noticed, I included a link to one of these documents (Andropov's June 1968 memorandum to the Politburo about the Chronicle) in the notes to the entry on A Chronicle of Current Events in Wikipedia.

John Crowfoot (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * John, Putin kills people by the tens of thousands in Ukraine, reacts to military power only and does not respect the United Nations decisions, international law and human rights, so if Putin and his cronies crush protests in Moscow again, the West should promptly crush property, palaces, houses, hotels of Putin’s cronies in Europe by NATO tanks in response to Putin’s agression. This is the best option. Please watch and listen to Mikhail Leontyev's typical chekist rhetoric about idiots, trators, enemies, psychiatric illnesses among Russian opposition. Such Andropov-esque rhetoric was usually followed by political trials and political repression in the Soviet Union and means that chekists will admit no falsifications in elections and criminal cases of Russian dissidents and make no concessions to Russian opposition. Thus, chekists want war in Russia like in Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia. Russian chekists always made war, not concessions. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

My Dear Psychiatrick! I've only just read your comment.

Я не знаю, что ли, как и о чём говорит М. Леонтьев?! I had my fill of that "gentleman's" unpleasant and disingenuous chatter when I lived in Moscow in the 1990s. No need, I can assure you, for me to take such a refresher course in dishonesty and misrepresentation. John Crowfoot (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The West should adequately react to Russian political trials: the confinement of a Russian dissident in a Russian prison, labor camp or psychiatric hospital should be responded and followed by the confinement a Putin’s crony in a Western prison, labor camp or psychiatric hospital. The absence of Western reaction to Russian political trials will encourage Putin to confine thousands of Russian dissidents. Psychiatrick (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Since 2010 I have been a trustee and occasional contributor of a unique website entitled Rights in Russia. Each week it brings together, in English translation, a range of reports on what is happening to individuals and to NGO's and civil society in Russia.

The site still does not have the profile it deserves, but there is at least one place on the internet where arrests and trials, the renewed use of pyschiatric abuse to attack the opposition, and the constant pressure against NGOs including those that emerged in the late years of "perestroika" is systematically covered AND followed up. There jounalists, activists and researchers can get a clear idea of the frightful and concerted attempt to wind Russia back to pre-1985 conditions. John Crowfoot (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * During the Cold War up to 1989, nations of Western countries could only see KGB agents and spies of Soviet communists there, not their money, property and other assets. Now the Western nations can see these assets in the West and know names and addresses of their Russian owners to influence on them and halt political repression of Russian dissidents and wars on the borders of Russia. Why is the West idle and nonresistant? Psychiatrick (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the West is idle and does not put up any resistance. There are some visible signs of disapproval and punishment or restriction for certain individuals. The targeted sanctions imposed after the annexation of Crimea reveal a good knowledge of who owns what and where. The latest news, of course, being that the funds syphoned off from Hermitage Capital, where the unfortunate Sergei Magnitsky worked, have now been located. In the accounts of a certain musician close to the Russian president.

Then there is the intelligence from a variety of sources that every country gathers but prefers not to reveal publicly, because that would identify the sources too closely.

Even though the sanctions were targeted at regime figures in Russia and not at the general public, the latter were craftily persuaded that they were being made to suffer by the West after Putin's regime established counter-measures and limits on Western imports. John Crowfoot

(talk) 10:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In 2000, I visited Solzhenitsyn's house in Troitse-Lykovo near Moscow, talked to his wife, gave her my poem about using psychiatry agaist dissidents and asked her to publish it. She replyed they had no time and no opportunity to do so. At the same time Solzhenitsyn disscussed with Putin how to unite Ukraine, Belarus and Russia under Putin's dictatorship and paved the way to endless war. Those who listen to dictators are used by them as a means for war. Psychiatrick (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. I know that several former allies of Solzhenitsyn from Soviet days were bemused by his attitudes on his return and, in particular, his tolerance of Putin, someone who should have been totally alien to his way of thinking. John Crowfoot (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In exchange for Solzhenitsyn's loyalty, Putin allowed and recommended schoolchildren in Russian secondary schools to read and study Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago to be used as a handbook for the persecution of dissidents because Putin behaves like a typical lieutenant colonel of the KGB and always adopts the worst thing of all his choices for Russian people, ie punishments, imprisonments, show trials and political repression. When turning back to look at Soviet history, we understand that Georgy Zhukov knew about Gulag, saw innocent people in Gulag but betrayed his people when returned from WWII and was afraid of crushing mass murderer tyrant Stalin by Russian tanks. All Russian marshals and generals were cowardly and served evil. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you go to Elizabeth II and ask her to influence on Putin’s cronies who live in the West? Let her block their bank accounts, credit cards and make them leave their houses in the West if they do not stop their wars on Russia’s borders. Psychiatrick (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the lady and I are not acquainted. In any case, it is the government of the day, not the monarch, who has certain powers. In the 19th century, as Sergei Kapitza liked to recall, the Russian government demanded that its British equivalent deprive Herzen of his property and capital in this country. Her Majesty's Government said this was a matter beyond its control.

You can't bend the rules just to attack those you don't like or of whom you disapprove - in that case no rules would survive, neither would the independence of the judiciary and other advantanges of our form of existence. It is in Russia that a discreet phone call can decide the outcome of a trial, not here.

With best wishes John Crowfoot (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt during WWII and Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Elizabeth II during the Cold War discussed the red lines of the spheres of influence and bent the rules. If the Western leaders had been as irresponsible, dishonest and negligent as Stalin, Soviet red flags would have waved over their cadavers in Western capitals. Putin and his cronies are as cruel, perfidious and irresponsible as Stalin, so the current Western leaders should influence on them. Psychiatrick (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Russian tyrants in the Kremlin are, and always were, unable to retain their power without unleashing permanent wars in neighboring countries on Russia’s borders. Therefore, western leaders should help Ukrainian soldiers and Russian antiwar activists such as Eugene Novozhilov punished by Russian psychiatrists for his antiwar position (learn more in his blog). Now western leaders are silent and inert as to any person punished by coercive medication in a Russian psychiatric hospital but their silence and inertia can lead to the Third World War unleashed by the Kremlin. Psychiatrick (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Putin's cronies like socialism very much and can be used for its building in the West. If they refuse to build socialism in the West, let western leaders construct huge psychiatric Gulag and use neuroleptics to make Putin's cronies build socialism. Psychiatrick (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * John, please take this poem written by me, in Russian, to your archive. Because of its topic, this poem is at danger of being destroyed in Russia. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * John, please look through The New Chronicle of Current Events for the best Russian guys who are resisting to Putin's neostalinist dictatorial regime. Stanislav Kalinichenko is recommended to be taken to Britain from Russia in exchange for Igor Shuvalov, a Putin's crony. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

punctuation
Please note this edit. This sort of punctuation error seems to appear frequently in articles you've edited. An en-dash rather than a hyphen is used in ranges of years, pages, etc., and for parenthetical offsets. 2601:445:4001:4514:19AF:3293:E7E2:83BB (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me look at this. I would use a hyphen and an en-dash in different ways so I'm not quite clear what you mean. This may also be a clash between US-style use of em-dash (without spaces on either side) which doesn't look right to me -- in Britain! I'll check your edit, consult New Hart's Rules for editors and then get back to you. John Crowfoot (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I surrender. An em dash is used as described above by British publishers; however, OUP (New Hart's Rules)follow the US convention in usage. John Crowfoot (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beatrice Webb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minority Report. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's helpful - I shall revise accordingly! John Crowfoot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=707939750 your edit] to Mikhail Khodorkovsky may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , www.khodorkovsky.com], retrieved 13 Jan 2014. [http://larouchepac.com/node/13843 ref name="larouchepac.com"/ "Rothschild Open Russia Foundation Shut Down by Russia in 2006",

GA review Vladimir Bukovsky
The good article review for Vladimir Bukovsky has finally started. I'm working on the issues that have been raised, status on the Bukovsky article talk page and at Talk:Vladimir_Bukovsky/GA1 – Nkrita (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Excellent and timely news. Say if there's any way that I can help (I'll try to leave the article alone for the next few weeks ...) Just spotted and corrected BUKOVKSY (!) in this section title.
 * John Crowfoot (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The "Maverik, East and West" section states that "After the publication of Judgment in Moscow in French (1995) and then in Russian (1996), [Bukovsky] was denied entry to Russia from October 1996 until 2007, in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential elections." Do you know how correct that is? I am trying to find sources for the section and am having trouble finding information on this. – Nkrita (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Bukovsky has been nominated for Did You Know
There has been some development concerning the "hooks" for the nomination, it would be great if you could double-check my adjustments. – Nkrita (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think ALT-5 looks best. Vladimir Prison was worse (stricter) than the camps, but obviously better than a psychiatric prison-hospital (with definite release date). Note: Bukovsky was in the Vladimir Prison (capital P) when he was moved to Moscow in late 1976 for exchange with Corvalan. He himself had NO idea what was going on. John Crowfoot (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest one simple change to ALT-5 then it's fine:

"Did you know that for campaigning against indefinite psychiatric imprisonment for opponents of the regime, Vladimir Bukovsky (pictured) was HIMSELF confined for years in Soviet psychiatric prison-hospitals, labor camps, and prisons?"

It stresses the link between what he opposed and he himself suffered. John Crowfoot (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vladimir Bukovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Yakovlev. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Vladimir Bukovsky
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Human rights movement in the Soviet Union
Quite a while back you commented on my draft for a Human rights movement in the Soviet Union article. I have expanded it using your input on the origins (Mayakovsky Square, glasnost rally etc) and moved it into the published article space. The structure might still be a bit confusing to the uninitiated, and I am working on the readability (it feels quite wordy for an overview article). If you find the time, it would be great if you could take a look and see if there are glaring omissions, redundancies, confusions from your point of view. – Nkrita (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks complete and coherent. There are minor points to edit for clarity and accuracy, and there are references to be found for almost every statement in the "Chronicle". I'll look at those next week, if you like. Overall it's an impressive and thorough piece of work - well done.


 * Did you see my suggestion about cutting a couple of paragraphs on the Bukovsky entry? They seem redundant and repetitive in an already long and detailed article.


 * John Crowfoot (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I will separate the CCE refs as is our wont. :-)


 * Cutting paragraphs from Bukovsky entry: Yes, I saw that – I agree the paragraphs detailing Bukovsky's early protests and detailed prison times are not really necessary there and can be cut. The lead section should include the most significant/notable events though, which I suppose in this case is the release of the psychiatry documents and the aftermath for Bukovsky and internationally. – Nkrita (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is shaping up well BUT the section on the "Trial of Four" needs a fundamental re-write. The Four were arrested early in 1967, and Bukovsky et al protested against their arrest on 22 January 1967, but Ginzburg, Galanskov, Dobrovolsky and Lashkova were not themselves put on trial until January 1968 (for details see CCE 1, 30 April 1968). The long periods of detention were used to put pressure on those arrested in the hopes that they would collaborate in various ways, incriminating themselves and others.John Crowfoot (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Copy Editor's Barnstar
Thank you very much. It's a rewarding activity if someone has already done some good spadework! John Crowfoot (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Vesti iz SSSR
Hi John,

sorry for the delay – let's talk about Vesti in January, I am wrapping up a lot of things right now. – Nkrita (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No sweat! It's very good timing, actually. John Crowfoot (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Vesti
Hey, there - Happy New Year ...

Vesti is now up and running, although there's a lot of interesting work still to be done. I've added the link to both Russian and English Wikipedia entries about Kronid Arkadyevich and let a few people know.

Have a "butcher's" and tell me what you think. (Butcher's hook = look - it's Cockney, rhyming slang ...)

John Crowfoot (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Miller (British publisher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Murray. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Wm Miller, 1826 (for Web).FR12.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wm Miller, 1826 (for Web).FR12.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 11:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Wm Miller 1826 (small).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wm Miller 1826 (small).jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grace Crowfoot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victory Garden. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialist League (UK, 1932), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Government. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.

Please explain your contributions using an edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation may be confused with vandalism. Thank you.--Jklamo (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but as an experienced editor (in conventional publishing) I think it's important to put the readers first. They want a text that is clear and well-written—something that cannot be said, regrettably, about a great many entries on Wikipedia. And this, in my experience requires a period of regular and often intense revision, especially when the text is linked to half a dozen others on a related subject.

Naturally, I take your comment to heart and shall endeavour to reduce the number of small corrections. However, that will mainly benefit editors looking at the "View History" page, not the Article itself and its readers.

For the record: When a matter of substance is altered I always explain this in the "Edit summary". When the change merely concerns matters of style and clarity it seems to slow down the process and clutter up the "View history" with explanations of the obvious. If you consider this approach to be at fault, then please tell me. We are all busy, and none of us are doing this for material gain!

John Crowfoot (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Since you are still active, what do you think about this as one of people who contributed to these subjects? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yury A. Dmitriev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Terror ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Yury_A._Dmitriev check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Yury_A._Dmitriev?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion pending for File:Molly Hood in Lincoln days.jpg
Hello, John Crowfoot. Some time ago, a file you uploaded &mdash; File:Molly Hood in Lincoln days.jpg &mdash; was tagged with OTRS pending, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.


 * If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.


 * If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear B-bot

Molly Hood was my grandmother on my mother's side and I inherited this among many other photographs. I hope that this is sufficient explanation to avoid any extraneous formalities? (Not sure, however, if there's sentient being behind your tag who will understand such a common-sense reply) John Crowfoot (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Dorothy Hodgkin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi John Crowfoot. Thanks for disclosing here your relationship with Dorothy Hodgkin.

I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, John Crowfoot. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.

Your comments at the Dorothy Hodgkin talk page and your editing there, show very clearly what conflict of interest does to people. WP:SURNAME is a very well established part of WP:MOS, and what her friends and family would like her to be called has nothing to do with how we work in Wikipedia. If you were to hold an RfC it would fail by miles and miles.

I've added a tag at Talk:Dorothy Hodgkin so the disclosure is done there.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
 * a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
 * b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
 * (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article; and
 * (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the  tag to flag it for other editors to review.  In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once.  Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example.  This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the Dorothy Hodgkin article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

COI is not the primary issue here
Thank you, Jytdog.

You have not read very carefully the explanation I have given in the Talk section.

Far from being a family preference the use of first-name informality was the way that my aunt Dorothy's students and other colleagues remember her, and part of her distinctive style of work. I could ask her biographer, various of her distinguished students, to confirm this or - even - edit the Wiki article themselves.

They don't have the time to learn how to use Wikipedia. I regularly edit articles here. But if you asked such people the result would be exactly the same. In other words, the COI you refer to is largely a non-starter. John Crowfoot (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What matters is that you, a family member of the subject of the article, are at the article making changes based on your personal preferences about the subject.
 * In my experience of working on COI issues in WP, people with a COI will say just about anything to avoid actually seeing and dealing with their own conflict of interest.
 * I wrote the note above hoping you would stop, reflect, and see it.
 * If we cannot resolve this here we can move this to the COIN board and get wider input. Let me know.... Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The standard set by the scientific community
One thing that is quite clear about this discussion is that Wikipedia has not thought through the issues affecting notable women. Hence your rules, apparently, support the nonsense of referring to someone by her married name when she was 11 years old. Surely, using common sense, you can see that this is absurd.

That's a simple, even a trivial example.

Much more serious is that the weight of practice in the natural sciences, established over a longer period than Wikipedia has existed, is to preserve maximum clarity about an individual's contribution, whatever changes may take place in their marital status or preferred name. In this particular case my aunt published notable articles under her maiden name (these were not retrospectively changed to "Hodgkin") and subsequently, but only after the war, adopted the formal name "Crowfoot Hodgkin" -- without a hyphen, please.

In view of the established practice of the scientific community, and of the observation of its practice in this case by that community, from the Nobel Committee downwards, I suggest that if you want some rigid rule to be applied then you should not go by what someone is conventionally called, but in every instance refer not to Hodgkin but to "Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin". That seems to me clumsy, but it is more correct than your insistence on a popular and stiffly formal type of address.John Crowfoot (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion is not about the content issue, but your behavior. (This is one of things that user talk pages are for; we discuss content issues at the article talk page)
 * You are a Wikipedia editor and the policies and guidelines are your policies and guidelines; we created them and we use them (that "we" includes you).


 * Please have a look at User:Jytdog/How, which I wrote to help people understand the governance of WP and what makes this project possible. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia articles and peer reviews
Yes, I am Dorothy's nephew (her sister was my mother) but I am also a translator, editor and researcher with over thirty years' experience.

Every statement that I added to the article -- which I substantially expanded and re-wrote from a partial, unsatisfactory, in parts simply inaccurate and most imcomplete state -- is given a published source, apart from anything I might know from years of personal contact. I think some of your strictures, therefore, are misplaced.

As always when editing a Wikipedia article, I preserve what others have written and the sources they quote, except when what they say is demonstrably incorrect and the sources are of less weight and significance, e.g. a home-made website, than, say, a thoroughly researched biography, or reliable properly edited online resource like those of the Nobel Committee or the Royal Society.

As for "altering" what was recently changed, I was merely reverting the text to the form in which I originally wrote it. This whole business is in danger of becoming a circular discussion that surely does not need to be endlessly repeated once the premises were clearly stated and put up for discussion last year on the Talk page.John Crowfoot (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, persistently reverting to keep it in "the form in which I originally wrote it" is pretty much the definition of edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking responsibility for words and instructions
I decided a couple of years back to sign any item I created or edited in Wikipedia with my own name. So, it does not take any great research effort to establish that I am related to Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin.

Having lived in the Soviet Union and then Russia, I am acutely aware of another far more destructive practice than the open contribution by an informed and educated relative of the person being described, backed up by printed and published confirmation in sources that anyone can check and support or challenge.

I refer to the practice of anonmymous denunciation. The fact that I can see and read your comment, Jytdog, only slightly diminishes the unpleasant feeling of being instructed by someone whose qualifications, experience and identity remain concealed behind a pseudonym. I think it might be courteous if you contacted me by email -- crowfoot@uwclub.net -- in your own name, before any further discussion of the issues raised here.

Or, perhaps, if the rules forbid you to disclose your identity, under any circumstances, may I request that a female editor (which you are not, something tells me) of some seniority be entrusted with any further discussion of these issues and this particular article?

Wiki's rules in this case seem to me unthinkingly male-oriented and, as the current exchange shows, defective or, at the least, in need of further elaboration. A woman editor may be able to come up with a sensible proposal.John Crowfoot (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP allows editors to edit under pseudonyms - the spirit of the thing is that a person establishes an identity in the community and is accountable to the community under that single username. Each of us is responsible to each other and the community for what we do here and say here.
 * One of course can edit under his or her real name but that doesn't give anybody special privileges here; WP was built from the ground up to be written by nobodies -- this is baked deeply into the policies and guidelines and is part of what has made this place possible. The community views claims of personal expertise with...ambivalence.  We love experts, but not when experts try to trump the policies and guidelines with claims based on their expertise.  (See WP:EXPERT if you like).
 * Conflict of interest is probably the one set of behavior where the community does care about an aspect of an editor's real identity, and this is limited to relationships in the real world that create a conflict of interest. As I noted above, conflict of interest generally shows itself in a conflicted editor's editing and behavior.  When this kind of editing and behavior emerges we ask people to disclose the relationship (which you already did) and to follow the COI guideline (which you are not engaging with).
 * Addressing the claims of bias in the policies and guidelines -- the community is aware of these issues, generally. The article is joined to two wikiprojects that are women-centered. I have left a note at those projects to ask that they participate in the relevant article talk page section. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk page threading
Hi John.

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.

This is a convention here as basic as "please" and "thank you". Please follow it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm always ready to learn new tricks. Just can't get the hang of the threading yet -- must look at how others do it! John Crowfoot (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this what you mean?John Crowfoot (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, doesn't seem to work! John Crowfoot (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have always (since 2009) signed my contributions to the Talk page automatically, by clicking on the convenient "Sign your posts" box below.
 * Okay - a colon, not a semi-colon. It must be the unbearable heat ... John Crowfoot (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lesson!John Crowfoot (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Photo
Hi,

You wouldn't happen to have a photo of Grace Mary Crowfoot which could be uploaded to commons? Huldra (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you deal confidently with Wikipedia's rules and pettifogging caution about all and any photographs? I have encountered big, even unsurmountable problem with Wikipedia and use by contributors of privately owned family photographs. I have tried and failed. Miserably.
 * As a direct descendant of Molly Crowfoot through her third daughter Elisabeth, I inherited masses of family photos which I own as a family member and would happily let others show (it's hard for me to imagine any form of abuse they could suffer). In fact, I periodically receive requests from exhibitions about women archaeologists or from magazines publishing articles about my grandmother and her friends and colleagues among archaeologists, weavers and social reformers. There is never any problem in dealing with conventional publishing or shows of that kind. They acknowledge where the photograph came from and no money ever changes hands.
 * Wikipedia, on the other hand, strikes me as unhelpfully rigid and, to be honest, I've just given up and don't even try to post photos on pages I create or edit, about family members or many other subjects.
 * Do you have any suggestions -- or relavant exp;erience in using Wikipedia's guidelines and rules?John John Crowfoot (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn’t see this before. Do you have any pictures taken of her in Israel/Palestine  before 1948? That would be the easiest, then you could just upload it to commons and slap a    label on it, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS, again, sorry for the late reply. I didn't "watch" your user page, therefore I missed your reply, Huldra (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've finally added a photo of my grandmother Molly, dating to the 1930s. 80.44.78.122 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

The Reeves Tale
You may be amused by newspaper reports that material you added to the Beatrice Webb page appears to have been copy-pasted into the new book by Rachel Reeves. I wanted to add a (pre-Reevesian!) reference for that material, and wonder whether you have the details quite correct. As far as I can see, it was the affair by Wells with Amber Reeves that Webb called a 'sordid intruigue', though Webb then wrote to Sydney Olivier to forestall Wells preying on Olivier's daughters. I have no biographies of Wells to hand, but so e.g. Simon Heffer has it. Dsp13 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made corrections to that passage anyway. Hope that's OK. Webb does then write to Sydney Olivier to warn his daughters off Wells, but the passage as it stood seemed misleading. Dsp13 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine by me! I don't remember making such corrections ... 80.44.78.122 (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)