User talk:John of Reading/Archive 9

Lyndsay Pace (wiki page)
Hello, Im not sure if Im writing to the right section , I just eddited a wiki Page of Lyndsay Pace , we was doing it together with her , and we took the official bio from her official website http://lyndsaypace.com but we even didnt finish editing and the page was blocked and came back to the old one , any help will be really appriciated, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promogang (talk • contribs) 12:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right, I removed the extra text because it was copied from the official website. There are two problems with this:
 * Text from external websites is presumed to be copyrighted by the website owners unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Copyrighted text cannot be added to Wikipedia. See Copyright violations.
 * Text from a musician's biography is likely to be too promotional in tone to be used in an encyclopedia article. See "Wikipedia is not advertising". -- John of Reading (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Text from a musician's biography is likely to be too promotional in tone to be used in an encyclopedia article. See "Wikipedia is not advertising". -- John of Reading (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

 * No, I edit articles with typos whatever the topic area. But thanks anyway. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Help page
Hi, thanks for the Lord/Baron heads-up. Rojomoke (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Eat Smart Move More Weigh Less Page
Hi John! I am trying to edit my page- Eat Smart Move More Weigh Less- because it is tagged as an advertisment and it is not meant to be. I feel like we have done the best we can with writing it objectively, and I was wondering if you had any tips or guidelines to how we can make it more objective so that we can no longer recieve the "advertisement" flag. We just want to have this page as a resource for people to learn more about our program before signing up for it, not as an advertisement. I reviewed the comments you made about certain phrases such as "evidence-based", but that is the truth and we attached published articles to back that up, so I am unsure how to rephrase that. I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if this is way off course, and I would appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your time!! Madifehling (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's confession time: I really don't like to judge other people's prose, and don't know how much rewording is needed before the advert tag can be removed. But a couple of weeks back I did ask the opinion of the editor, who specialises in articles that seem to be over-promotional, whether or not they are intended as deliberate advertising. I suggest you post at User talk:Mean as custard. I'm sorry not to be more helpful here. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's confession time: I really don't like to judge other people's prose, and don't know how much rewording is needed before the advert tag can be removed. But a couple of weeks back I did ask the opinion of the editor, who specialises in articles that seem to be over-promotional, whether or not they are intended as deliberate advertising. I suggest you post at User talk:Mean as custard. I'm sorry not to be more helpful here. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, John! I will contact him and try to find out more information- thank you for your recommendation. I was also wondering why it would be a "conflict of interest" for me to update our Wikipedia page when I work for the oraganization- I feel like this would be a better way to post reliable information instead of a random citizen, so that all of the information on our page can be accurate. Just wondering how I can fix this or what a better way to post on the page would be. Thanks!! Madifehling (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You can read about that at WP:COI. Roughly, information in Wikipedia articles should have been previously published in what we call reliable sources - books, news reports, academic journals etc - so that interested readers can check it for themselves. A "random citizen" is much more likely to follow those rules, writing only what he has found in the sources. An employee is likely to throw in extra information that hasn't been published anywhere, will be tempted to leave out negative information, and may be tempted to treat the Wikipedia article as an extension of the company's website.
 * The approved way for you to edit the article is to make suggestions and requests on the talk page, Talk:Eat Smart, Move More, Weigh Less, so that independent editors can make the decisions. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up quite a bit. Mean as custards initial concerns about external links and list of lessons both of which are now resolved. I've removed the tag although more work is required and I won't object to a readdition of the advertise tag in it's present state. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for watching my talk page! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much to both of you, I greatly appreciate your help!! Thank you Sun Creator for editing the page and cleaning it up- I will try to continue to make it less like an adervisement. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madifehling (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help in removing the flags on our page! I am trying to take away our orphan status by linking up to other wiki pages, but I want to ask what you suggest as the best way to do this. Our main supporters and developers of Eat Smart Move More Weigh Less ( N.C. State University, NC Division of Public Health, and NC Cooperative Extension) do not have pages that list their programs or have appropriate places to mention our program. Could we link up to the Weight Management wikipedia page? Or similar ones like that? I saw that Weight Watchers and other diets were listed there, and we do not qualify ourselves at a "diet", but I wanted to run this by you first if this would come accross as advertising or any promotion. If you could just let me know your thoughts on this, that would be great! Thank you again for all of your time. Madifehling (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that article is too general to have a list of specific programs. I've removed some of them (with this edit) and that whole paragraph has no reliable sources and is fairly new. You could suggest something at Talk:Management of obesity to see what the regular editors of that page think about it. Please don't add the link yourself.
 * Being an "orphan" is not such a big deal. Category:Orphaned articles contains 171,000 pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Being an "orphan" is not such a big deal. Category:Orphaned articles contains 171,000 pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, John, that is very helpful and I will look into that- or just leaving it as an Orphan if need be. Thank you again for taking the time to help me! Unfortunately, all the tags plus more have been added again, so I think I need to step back and take somet time on those first. Madifehling (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Abhay Gupta Varanasi


A tag has been placed on User talk:Abhay Gupta Varanasi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

''Personal details and photograph identifiying a 10 year old child. Needs to be removed / revision deleted.''

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Biker Biker (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll let the admins decide! I merely created the page with a welcome message. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Hmm, someone must have drunk it. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Phaleristics is correct and Faleristics isn't
Hello John. Would you mind assisting in a simple project, per discussion here? This article must not continue to use the title with the word spelt with an 'f'. No matter how common it seems, there is simply no call to use that spelling which is usually used only in Russia and some of the Balto-Slavic countries. And as I have contended in the past, it misleads people searching for this article, in spite of the excellent work you did. The trouble is I do not know how to do these two tasks. A mention in the article itself that some choose to misspell it with an 'f' is enough, and the article itself should be retitled. Then a redirect can be formed in case anyone enters the spelling with an 'f'. What do you think? Shall we keep the misspelling? I believe we ought to do away with it and let it suffice that a mispelt entry will redirect; and a brief mention of it in the article without making the misspelling something significant, which it is not.~© Djathink imacowboy  07:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) According to this handy tool, neither word is mentioned in any recognised dictionary. But I see from the talk page that, a specialist editor, agrees with you. So I suggest you make the move and see if anyone objects. I don't think your recent edits to the Faleristics article have improved it, by the way - it is clearly not "unreferenced", and your newly-added section cites no sources and does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a brief addendum: I'd be obliged if you looked at my 4 references (2 to Google, 2 to Amazon U.S.) at the bottom of the thread here, for discussion on talk page purposes only, to see why I think it is vital to correct this article title to Phaleristics and redirect from anyone entering Faleristics or even "Faleristiks".~© Djathink imacowboy  07:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, an English-language source using the "Ph" spelling is convincing. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello John. I'm sorry for visiting here, I just wanted to check back...I can't tell if you are being serious or what with your above reply. I mean no offense, it's just difficult to understand what that means--are you sincere? We have many sources, in actual fact, that use both forms of spelling, but it is obvious the "ph" spelling is the correct one. I believe what has happened is the spelling with an "f" was a Russian influence. It begins to look as though it really makes no difference, which I think you may have expressed in the past. Anyway, let us keep this discussion at the article talk page, if you like. That way I won't flood your talk page with this. I feel it shouldn't really go much further if you still feel the use of the "f" is OK. Just let me know. Thank you.~© Djathink imacowboy  20:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there was no irony there. When I saw the Amazon search results I was convinced that "Ph" is the correct spelling for the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, just wished to be sure. As to the article, I will look it over and see if there's anything I should revert there. All I can recall at the moment is adding George VI's interest in the subject which is certainly significant as a detail. So I cannot agree it fails to improve the article. And I do not edit articles by adding POV, OR or unsourced materials. IN fact it is my practice to remove such things from articles. :) ~© Djathink imacowboy  20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the section "Origin of the word "Faleristics"". -- John of Reading (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you see about a year or so ago, there was some debate about the spelling--thus in the interim, someone put in something strangely worded. Your point is well taken--I think what I was doing over there was just struggling with what was already in the article. Frankly, I'm going to make an attempt to nominate AfD. That article is just one long silly sentence, and my reference to King George is very nearly out of context because there is no context. I could not find the word listed anyplace; I was contacted by collectors and experts who tell me the correct term used is "phaleristics" but then admitted that it isn't really a "recognized" word. I wouldn't use that since it is OR, but it gives you a sense of that article and its total lack of notability. After all, what notability does that have, except that it tells us the term being used only among those in the field of collecting?~© Djathink imacowboy

Faleristics
Per your offer here, cheers John. That sort of work scares me because I have made a pig's ear of far less in the past. Otherwise I'd have tried it a while back. Would you please do it? Of course you know, there's a Barnstar in it for you....~© Djathink imacowboy  12:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for this John. I feel badly because just after you did that I successfully renamed/moved another ill-advised article which is now Parka (coat).~© Djathink imacowboy  13:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Therefore...


 * Aw, thank you! I'm not sure about Anorak/Parka, so I'll stay clear of that one. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah well, I think I did the Parka (coat) thing all right...since that silly Anorak redirected to Parka I could not figure out how to rename it "Parka". I simply retitled it more effectively and ensured all the redirected titles would redirect there. I encourage you to check it out...maybe for some errors? I think it is good. The only item that makes my blood run cold is when that possessive editor sees what happened. Even though he is the one who put in the very article that the two terms did not mean the same thing! If you can't look at it, that is OK. It really is still in pieces. I had to remove an entirely other article from it before doing anything else.~© Djathink imacowboy  14:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think the article belongs either at Anorak or at Parka (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) or as two separate articles if you think the sources support this. I don't think it should be at Parka (coat). In some cases the software will allow you to move an article to a new name, even though there is a redirect there already; in other cases you can post the db-move template to ask an admin to do the move for you. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for correcting my utterly useless attempt to insert facts at the Cornelius Brothers and Sister Rose. 98.86.22.228 (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheer up, we were all beginners once! The page you need is Referencing for beginners. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheer up, we were all beginners once! The page you need is Referencing for beginners. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

PostEdit
Hey John. Thanks for the reply on the Help Desk about hiding the post-edit confirmation. If you see anyone asking about that in future, feel free to bug me about it, especially if someone has questions more complex than just looking for the CSS. Much appreciated, Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   17:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Roland Stobbart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Preston, Test matches, Dominions, Golden Helmet and George Pepper

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did. But you should have seen the state of the page before I edited it... -- John of Reading (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Cross Road (a byway)
Hello John, we talked in February when you kindly helped with my article. Can you now help me to do two things please so that I can get it successfully submitted? 1. Change the title to "Cross Road (an archaic meaning of Byway)" and 2. Improve a Reference as follows: The mention of cross roads in The History of the Post Office from Its Establishment down to 1836 appears on page 66. You said you couldn't find it (as it wasn't indexed) but I've just found it by tracking under "Roads, condition of". Hopefully this completes the required referencing but please tell me if there's more needed. Thanks Jacobandtotty (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned page 66. I think the proper title should be "Cross road (byway)" according to the article title guideline. That's sentence case for the two words of the title, and the shortest possible "disambiguator" in brackets. I have therefore renamed the page to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cross road (byway)". The sourcing looks good now, so I am tempted to click the "submit" button, but I'll leave that to you. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello John, thanks again for help with cross road explanation. In response to Swt tarrash I've attempted to explain why this article is noteworthy on his talk page. But he hasn't responded. Could you look at that for me please? I've also added two more references. One is the first road itinerary of Britain, Ogilby's Britannia, 1675 (British Library). The second is a high court decision in which a judge declares that a cross road is a byway and not a lesser highway which would exclude certain public users. I'm waiting for these two things to be added by bot - if that's how it works. Both are in the Taylor book - Ogilby page 11 and Judge Howarth page 39.

I'm also thinking of getting the Taylor book included in its entirety in www.archive.org if I can get publishers authorisation. Would that help strengthen the book's citation? I don't know if it is understood but the last reference cited is the document re conventional signs for maps made under the Commutation of Tithes Act which was a contemporaneous government instruction to those mapmakers responsible on how to show byways to the whole population - so that there was consistency across the country. And "cross road" is the term they chose. So this is a very strong citation to anyone who understands what the document is.

If you think the article is now good enough to move to mainspace would you undo Swt tarrash's veto please? Thanks (Jacobandtotty (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC))


 * I've moved your new post to the bottom of this section, since this is usual for talk pages (WP:TPG)


 * It seems to me that you haven't used enough of the material in the Taylor book yet. From the draft as it stands, all I can tell about the book is that it has at least 20 pages, and that it says that the term appears on maps and in dictionaries. From your comments here I discover that the book includes some legal discussion as well. And your comments at User talk:Swt tarrash show that the term isn't just a historical curiosity but has present-day legal consequences. Presumably the Taylor book discusses those, but there is nothing in the draft article about it. Have any other researchers published anything about these legal issues? It would help the draft a lot if it could show that Taylor/Hogg aren't the only people writing about cross roads.


 * For formatting the references you need to look at Referencing for beginners. Although you've added two new sources down in the "References" section, the draft doesn't explain what they have to say about the subject. Your text needs to look something like this...

In 1995 Judge Howarth declared that blah blah blah, and this has the legal consequence that blah blah blah. Until this is resolved, landowners and local authorities are usually unwilling to ....


 * ...and then the article text will say more about cross roads and why they are important, and the software will format the references as footnotes so that readers can see where all the facts and opinions are coming from. Your other footnotes were not formatted by a bot, but by yours truly! If you go to the draft and click "View history" at the top you will see all the editors who have worked on the draft.


 * Similarly if it is important that the Commutation of Tithes Act mentions the word, it would be helpful for the article to say why it is important, with a reference to the published source that explains this.


 * Wikipedia sources don't have to be online - see Offline sources - so I wouldn't worry about that.


 * I'm not going to undo the edit by, but you are welcome to click the "resubmit" link to put the draft back in the review queue. Don't do that yet, though, because the article is so little changed from when it was last declined.


 * I think I've covered everything I want to say... -- John of Reading (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help at Portal:Freedom of speech.

Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard. I'd hope this can be addressed swiftly, the user in question has at least four previous warnings at User talk:Rancalred for vandalism related disruption. This latest problem has caused disruption across multiple pages both in main article space and portal space. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, moving a portal is tricky and really needs discussion first! -- John of Reading (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (More) You should be able to move the article back to its old name. Provided no one has edited the redirect, the software allows non-admins to move a page back to where it came from. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did that. Seeing as how the user's talk page consists almost entirely of CSD notifications and warnings for vandalism and disruption, I'd hope a block for disruption is in order here? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll let the admins decide on that. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay those above issues are resolved. Thanks again for your help. Perhaps you'd be interested in joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech? :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I just run a recent changes patrol in the portal namespace, so when I'm online I can jump on any portal issues pretty quickly. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, no worries, either way, but if you give it some more thought, we'd always love to have you as a member of WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse/New contributors' help page problem
Was this problem ever solved?— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, when the New contributors' help page/questions page was moved back to its old name, your contributions page automatically corrected itself as well. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to the problem others were having.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I think all of 's actions were undone, so the NCHQ page is running normally again. Nothing went missing from the NCHQ page or its archives. The discussion on shutting it down in favour of the Teahouse seems to be stalled. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a newbie here
I've just started putting up pages in earnest, and first of all I have to say how incredibly difficult it is to find information on how to do it.

Secondly, it rapidly became obvious that some of the production templates are woefully deficient. I'm particularly thinking of infobox:islands and location map. Several of the features don't work, or not properly, sometimes because parameters are ignored. The documentation doesn't always align with actuality either. Infobox:islands declares itself to be modelled on settlement. Hardly! Most of the identical sounding parameters in fact have different names, and other functions are missing.

But the thing that really gets my goat is administrators who delete or change things without any explanation. Not all do, but more than enough. I don't know how I am supposed to improve if I am not told what is wrong, even if it is some apparently unwritten law. It would also be much simpler for them to write me a note, like this, so that I can incorporate their whims into what I am doing. Otherwise it is hard to distinguish it from vandalism. As it is I only find out because I am still developing the pages, so look at my watchlist and contributions fairly frequently, otherwise I'd never know.

I'm a proofreader too. Johnmperry (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're having trouble. I agree that it is a pity that hasn't used any edit summaries, as that would make his intentions clearer. You should feel free to ask on his talk page about anything he has done. Be careful not to accuse him of anything bad; he's a well-established editor, so you should assume that whatever he is doing is for the good of the encyclopedia.
 * I've had a look at the "10 ha (0 acres)" problem in the infobox, and the coding is beyond me! I've posted about it at Template talk:Infobox settlement, so with luck someone will find a way to correct that. A workaround for now would be to add "|area_total_acre=25", bypassing the buggy conversion.
 * Is there any other specific issue you'd like me to have a look at? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any other specific issue you'd like me to have a look at? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually Frietjes (I'm guessing this is pronounce like freakies) is one of the better ones, because he sometimes leaves comments! There are others who don't say anything. I only find out as I said by monitoring the watchlist fairly frequently. Then I have to spend a long time going through the revisions to find out what has actually changed. And sometimes I never know why - is it a style rule somewhere, or just a personal preference - there seems no particular point in re-ordering the sequence of parameters in an invocation. because they appear in the process sequence regardless. There were other admins who deleted a line without any explanation. Since I am working on a set of about 20 fairly similar pages - an island subgroup (yes, some are 10 ha or smaller), then it would be a much better proposition for me to be told early on what is and isn't OK. Rather than they and I both have to spend a long time changing each one later. John of Cromer Johnmperry (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to check: since you say here that you spent a long time going through revisions, have you discovered how to jump from the "history" tab to the "diff" of each edit? Another time-saver is to turn on "Navigation popups" in your preferences, and then you can see the details of each edit just by hovering the mouse over each "prev" link in the history page.
 * You are right, re-ordering the named parameters of a template has no effect. If that's all the edit did, then that must be a personal preference. But without knowing which edit you have in mind, I can't really comment. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm gradually "getting my head round things". Actually before checking on edit diffs I first have to check the status of the editor - was it a real admin or just a passer-by? I don't like hiding behind usernames, and I think there should be a better indication of adminship. Amusement now is provided when one editor's edits are changed by another! :-)

I'd quite like to message frietjies direct, but there seem to be several. Which should I choose. Johnmperry (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Any time you see an editor mentioned in the page history, you can click on the user name and jump to their "user page", and then click on the "Talk" link at the top to get to their "User talk page" where you can leave a message. Or, if you receive a message from anyone, the signature at the end should contain links to the user page and/or the user talk page.


 * There are various ways to check whether an editor is an administrator. One is to go to Special:ListUsers, and type the name in there. If you do that for me, you'll see I have the "reviewer" permission - I'm not an administrator. I have Navigation popups turned on, which makes it easy - whenever I hover the mouse over a user name, I get a little popup showing, among other things, the date they registered, the number of edits made, and any permissions they hold.


 * But when reviewing someone's edits it doesn't really matter whether the editor is an administrator or not. If someone has spent months or years editing sports articles, say, it is likely that they know what they're doing and can be trusted. Whether they have the technical ability to delete or protect pages, block users, and so on - the administrator rights - shouldn't matter. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

that one of the main reasons humans are different from other animals is that they have no special adaptations?
Hello John I recently edited this by removal although I didn't state a reason due to confusion of how editing works. Anyway, Humans do have many special adaptations. An example I will use is long distance running. Evidence for this is our unique ability to sweat all over and are relatively hairless compared to other apes which are not active in the way we are. Further evidence for this adaptation are tribes, such as in Mexico, that have been observed hunting animals by running them into over exhaustion. This statement also seems to invoke the idea that human beings are independent of natural selection and that our current body plan was somehow not influenced by our surroundings. Seeing as how current biology is based on evolution this is preposterous. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.44.44 (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining! I have restored your deletion of that item and have copied this explanation to Portal talk:Biology/Did you know. You may find some biologists turn up there to disagree with you, but that's what collaborative editing is all about. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The AWB "After fixes" column
John, I saw in your post on the Feature request page that you never use the "After fixes" column. I agree that it's wider than necessary, but I don't want you to miss the "After fixes" party. Here is a great use for "After fixes": suppose you have just added a Typo rule, but there are hundreds and hundreds of articles that it applies to, and you want to let other AWB users clean up some of them. However, you want to fix the ones that TypoFix won't touch, such as a misspelled heading like "Slected works", or a misspelling in the "ShortSummary" field of an "Episode list" template. Put the Typo rule in your "Find and Replace" rules, with "After fixes" checked. Check "Enabled" for Find and replace, and check "Enable Regex TypoFix". Also check "Skip if no replacement" under "Find and replace". When you run this, TypoFix will apply the fix for the misspelling in normal running text, leaving nothing for "Find and replace" to fix, so the page will be skipped. AWB will only stop if the "Find and replace" fixes a misspelling that TypoFix refused to handle. Pre-parse mode might be useful in this case. Enjoy! Chris the speller  yack  19:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a possible use. But usually if I find a typo that affects "hundreds and hundreds" of articles I will just work through them. One of the fixes in the E list is "eg > e.g.", and you can imagine how many of those there are! -- John of Reading (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Third Reading Wiki Meetup
You are invited to the third Reading Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Hope Tap, 99-105 Friar Street, Reading RG1 1EP on Sunday 20 January 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Berkshire related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advance notice. I'll think about it. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

About administrators
I'm a bit conused about who or what is an administrator. Mainly because seemingly some kid has edited my user page. I had a look in [|List of admins] and he's not there. As it happens, neither are you, nor frietjes. So is the list wrong, or is there another class of editor I've got confused about?

[new sig] John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 16:16, wikitime= 08:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that edit. An "administrator" here is an experienced editor who has asked for extra features to be enabled in the user interface - the main ones are a "delete" function for pages and a "block" function for editors. You can read about that at administrator.
 * But there are lots of administration-type jobs here that only need the regular "edit" ability. One of those jobs is the enforcement of Wikipedia's rules on the use of non-free images. was entirely correct in removing that image, especially as he left you a polite explanation on your user talk page.
 * Short answer: any editor, even one editing without an account, is welcome to improve the encyclopedia, either by adding content or by doing the behind-the-scenes jobs. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say he was wrong, I just wondered who he was. According to his own userpage, he doesn't like grammar and can't spell. Which made me wonder about his qualifications to be an editor. John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 17:29, wikitime= 09:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even those with spelling difficulties. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How about my sandbox? Can anyone play in it? John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 21:06, wikitime= 13:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's a subpage of your user page, it counts as user space, so WP:USERPAGE applies, including WP:NOBAN. If it's a sandbox somewhere else, such as WP:SANDBOX, it's pretty much open to editing by all. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Thanks, Redrose64, for those links to policies. John, I dug out this example of an edit where someone removed a non-free image from my sandbox. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not attacking that editor; I'm sure he was quite right to remove the image - basically I didn't read to the bottom of the file page, mostly because I didn't know there were any copyright-protected images on WP. I was just surprised a little at the speed of it, he must have been up all night scanning the 2 bn (or whatever) pages there are on WP! I'm also trying to work out the envelope. From his userpage it seems his ideas are diametrically opposed to mine, because he doesn't seem to approve of grammar or correct spelling, and I wondered how that could make him an admin. But you're saying he's not, he's just an ordinary Joe, and anyone can do virtually anything. Or as the picture said until it was removed, "On the internet no-one knows you're a dog." Strange hobby - he should get out more! John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 23:18, wikitime= 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! Actually there's a behind-the-scenes computer program running to spot misuse of non-free images. Your user page is listed on the current version of this daily report, so even if Qwekiop147 hadn't spotted it, other editors specialising in copyright would have been along within a few hours. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You'll need to add your translated text to the Spanish Wikipedia if you haven't already. Their help page es:Wikipedia:Taller idiomático describes how to do that properly, I think. Once that's done, go to the English-language article and add a new interwiki link at the bottom - something like . This will make the word "Espanol" appear on the left, linking to your translated page. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds straightforward enough, but I can envisage a problematic future. How about when you make amendments to an L1 page? You translate it again, then what? What happens to the article already in L2? It is not inconceivable that that has taken its own separate course, and had its own amendments, so you can't just replace it. And conversely, someone from the L2 wiki may want to do the same to "your" L1. John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Tue 07:23, wikitime=  23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, once an article is created it will have its own independent history. If other editors have worked on the L2 article it wouldn't be appropriate to re-translate the L1 article. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Need advice
I came across an article which I think is a pile of pooh, in several dimensions. It tells me less than I already know, it is deficient, and it has a dodgy name. What would be the polite way of making my views known to its "owners", bearing in mind it is also a tagged religious article?

I'd like to email you rather than air it all here.

Page I'm objecting to is Béguinage (i.e. with the accent). There is already a better one: Beguines_and_Beghards and another of my own renovated from an article I put online about 15 years ago - User:Johnmperry/sandbox/beguines - and which I'm still working on, as I want to add my own photos of beguinages.

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Tue 10:33, wikitime= 02:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think there's a place for both articles, as Béguinage seems to be more about the places and the buildings, while Beguines and Beghards seems to be more about the people and their history. If you think there should be only one article, the place to propose this is on the article talk pages, with a notice at the top of the two articles. The details are at Merging.
 * The material in your sandbox needs more references, as there are entire paragraphs with no indication of where the information has come from. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I spotted this morning that the only item in the talk page of Béguinage is a suggestion dated 2005 that the article be dumped! I've got so many problems with the page that I have to agree. As a side issue, I don't think that foreign alphabets should be allowed in wiki titles, on the basis that you can't type them. In any case, the English dictionary word is beguinage, no accent. Another I stumbled upon this morning is Pāṇini.

The main problem with dumping/merging is that there are all those portal tags on it.

I don't know why UNESCO gave the citation as it did. My guess it was an emollient attempt to smooth the differences between the Walloons and the Flemings. My other guess is that it achieved the opposite - the main difference is that in Flanders they speak (and are) Flemish, so the citation should have been in Flemish too. On the other hand, there are beguinages in Belgium (and elsewhere) that aren't in Flanders - Brussels for instance. If you actually look at the citation (as I did), you will see that they have put the word béguinage in italics, indicating that they know it is not an English word.

I'm still working on that article - there was no wiki when I wrote it (about 1999), and what few references I give are hand-carved. So far I've really just given it format; polish is coming.

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Tue 16:33, wikitime= 08:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When that talk page comment was made in April 2005, the article looked like this. Now there's much more content, so you'd definitely need to discuss before doing anything drastic. The "portal tags" are actually "WikiProject" tags. They just mean that if you do propose a merge, you are likely to get comments from editors interested in Christianity, architecture, and/or Belgium.


 * Accents in article titles are discussed at Article titles. I don't know the answer in this case. Accented characters are easy to type if you have the editing toolbar enabled - just switch the first control from "Insert" to "Latin" (æ É û Œ).


 * But the place to discuss an article is the article talk page. Then you'll get comments from any editors who are interested in the subject, rather than half-baked comments from me. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What do I do about broken links?
Is there a special procedure? Johnmperry (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:REDLINK if you have found a broken link that should be pointing to another Wikipedia page, or at WP:LINKROT if you have found a broken link to an external web site. If you tell me which article and which link you have in mind, I might be able to give more specific advice. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have come across several in my trawl for useful info, etc. I mean external links, because internal I leave wiki to look after itself.  Immediate reaction would be just to delete the line, but I thought there would be a more useful thing to do.  WP:LINKROT tells me to add the template  which is what I really wanted to know.  The problem I find with wp is that there is a lot of structural information in it, but it's extremely hard to find it.  John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime: Monday 10:13:15 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you hit "enter" in the search box at the top right while it is empty, you will jump to Special:Search. There you can type "Broken links" and click "Help and project pages". By magic, WP:LINKROT is the first search result. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Another connected question: because I live/work in China, there are a lot of unreachable sites, for instance facebook, youtube, anything to do with social networking, and any site with 'blog' in its name. So I can't really tell if a link is generally not working, or just for me.  So is there any way I can tag a link to get it checked automatically?   And/or can you check this link: http://exfacie.com/?q=vi_coactus  John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Thu 11:08, wikitime=  03:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know a way to get a link checked automatically, and I'm not sure where you can/should ask about them. Feel free to ask here! You could try asking this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. The page "Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall" might be relevant.


 * The "exfacie.com" link doesn't display anything useful for me: a page headed "Error | Drupal" and then "The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later" plus some technical detail. The home page exfacie.com shows the same message. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification, but I'll stick to fixing typos. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Guirand de Scevola
Hello John, Yesterday I've made a change on the Guirand de Scevola page: I corrected the date of the self-portrait from 1941 in 1917. This painting is in my collection. I've written a short biographical sketch for www.askart.com and uploaded this portrait on that site. I suppose someone took it from there and put it on wikipedia recently. Since a year I'm researching life and work of this artist with the aim of publishing an article.

This wiki-page is very poor. That's not so strange, because it's hard to find information on this artist. But some points are irritating, e.g. the mentioned age of 62, which obviously doesn't match with his (correct) dates of birth and death. I tried to correct this, but didn't succeed, being a wiki-beginner. Can you correct it please? Thanks!

All the best,

Rik Wassenaar, The Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwa073 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a slight coding error in the "infobox" at the top right, which I have fixed, so it now says 78 as you'd expect. I have also put back the two spelling fixes I did to that article two days ago - I assume you didn't mean to undo those?
 * I wonder where User:Chiswick Chap found the 1941 date when he uploaded the picture? I suggest you go to the file page, File:Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola.jpg, and edit the 1941 date there as well - click "Edit" at the top, then find and change the two places that say "1941". Use the edit summary to explain how you know. Is the date written at the bottom right of the painting? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder where User:Chiswick Chap found the 1941 date when he uploaded the picture? I suggest you go to the file page, File:Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola.jpg, and edit the 1941 date there as well - click "Edit" at the top, then find and change the two places that say "1941". Use the edit summary to explain how you know. Is the date written at the bottom right of the painting? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello John, Thanks for your assistance! Regards, Rik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwa073 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello John, I can confirm that the only version of the picture I've seen is the small thumbnail, and I thought I could dimly read 1941 at lower right, could easily be 1917 if you think of French handwriting. Delighted to know we have someone who actually owns the painting helping out! Guirand looked to me older than 40s in the painting but then these things vary a great deal. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Pointless redirect
This page History of the Philippines (1521-1898) has a redirect page with the same name. How to remove the redirect page? It doesn't do anything John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Fri 11:11, wikitime=  03:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not quite the same. The page title separates the dates with an ndash, while the redirect uses an old-fashioned ASCII hyphen. This matches the advice at MOS:DASH. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted; I have read the discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The elevator vandal
Hello, John. I've been checking the history of "the elevator vandal", as documented in your CSD log page. I'm afraid there doesn't seem much we can do about this, beyond playing Whack-A-Mole, i.e. deleting and blocking as each new IP appears. I have put blocks on all the IPs used, in the faint hope that it may slightly slow down the vandalism, but I'm afraid it probably won't, as the vandal will just move to another IP address. Range blocking is not going to be helpful either. The whole IP range used by the vandal is far too large to block. Picking out smaller ranges that contain most of the IP addresses used, I find there are some constructive edits, so blocking for any more than a very short time is out of the question. I have placed a couple of short range blocks, in the hope that every little bit of extra inconvenience for the vandal may help to bring forward the day when he/she eventually gets tired and gives up, but since there are several gaps of one to two weeks between periods of activity, a block of a week or two won't inconvenience him/her much, and any longer range block would be unacceptable because of the collateral damage, quite apart from the likelihood of the vandal's moving to an unblocked IP anyway. So, as I said above, it seems to be a matter of Whack-A-Mole. However, please do feel welcome to drop a note on my talk page next time you see this vandal in action, and I will certainly delete any vandalism page and block the individual IP address for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for investigating. We'll see... -- John of Reading (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this lovely welcoming message, no matter it is automatically generated or not, that's really nice! Actually I mainly contribute on the French-speaking WikiPedia, but why not taking a look more often here on the English-speaking side. ^w^ Regards, KiwiNeko14 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. I hope you like it here! -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi John,

Yes I was trying to get rid of the error and also I did not find the reference exactly in relation to the mentioned line in the article, it was just distantly related. I've gone through what you've done and thanks for helping me.

Dileep Dileepunnikri (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)(talk)23:03,26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent - glad to have helped. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent - glad to have helped. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

About Giants of Monte Prama
Thanks a lot for your advice. I've fixed some references. What do you think about the rest? I'm not really expert on en.Wiki templates, if you give more advices, they are welcome. Thanks again--Shardan (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've done a good job with the and  templates - the short footnotes in the "Notes" section are correctly hooked up with the corresponding entries in the bibliography.


 * But the first 12 entries within the were not achieving anything, and I couldn't work out what they were for. They are currently not part of the article at all, since I added HTML comments around them so that they are completely ignored. I think all the publication details and page numbers are listed elsewhere in the article, so it should be safe to delete them completely. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, it's much better now, Thanks again,...and what about the style, syntax, grammar and images? :-)..What can I do more?--Shardan (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've run the AWB spelling-checker on it, and will read it through. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (More) Wow! I've read it all, and have hopefully improved the grammar in places. It's obviously a very technical subject. I've left a message at the talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate a lot.--Shardan (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Grading of articles
I have a problem with one page in particular, which has been graded as B-Class. I looked at the relevant wiki information about classification, and I don't see how this page (Spanish peseta) manages it at all, because it is shallow and inadequate, has almost no references, and does not seem to me to have a neutral point of view - it seems very pro-Catalan rather than strictly objective.

Furthermore, corrections I made to it this weekend have been reverted twice, even though the reverter says he agrees with me.

I have tagged it as and one section as.

How can I get it formally assessed?

Can I have similar independent assessment of the page which I have been principally concerned with recently - Bantayan Island? (currently rated starter-class).

Another Q - what subheadings do you think would be suitable to categorise fauna? Such as fish, birds etc., but slightly more erudite? I used avifauna for birds but am reluctant to use mariculture for fish, because they include natives as well as farmed. Similarly for land animals, distinction between agronomy, including battery hens, and the natural environment. Similar too even for flora - difference between agriculture and natural. Can you offer a page which satisfactorily meets this challenge?

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 10:11, wikitime= 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ratings: checking the history of the talk page, the two "B" ratings were added by over five years ago by editors who are no longer very active, so there's not much point asking them to review the article. I suggest you begin a section on the talk page listing your concerns, then add a brief note on the talk pages of the two wikiprojects asking for a re-assessment.
 * Ratings: checking the history of the talk page, the two "B" ratings were added by over five years ago by editors who are no longer very active, so there's not much point asking them to review the article. I suggest you begin a section on the talk page listing your concerns, then add a brief note on the talk pages of the two wikiprojects asking for a re-assessment.


 * You could try asking to have another look, or post on the talk pages of the two wikiprojects.
 * You could try asking to have another look, or post on the talk pages of the two wikiprojects.


 * Flora and fauna subheadings? No idea! But you could look through the better-quality sub-categories of Category:Islands articles by quality to see the headings that other editors have chosen. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at that list (Category:Islands articles by quality). I don't understand the gradings. It seems like the islands project gave out As and Bs to just about anybody - there are only four class A islands, and I don't understand how three of them progressed further than stubs - Barber Island for instance. Then I looked at class B. Amongst the islands there is Glastonbury Tor. I am unimpressed. And Greenland is C-class. Crazy people!!

I'll take up your other sugestions. John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 17:39, wikitime= 09:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The general criteria, not specific to any one WikiProject, are at WP:ASSESS. A-class is very tight - details are at WP:ACLASS - and normally requires peer review. B-class is also pretty tight, but the six-point checklist at WP:BCLASS doesn't require peer review. C/Start/Stub are less stringent, and some people will rate a given article as Start-class that another has rated C-class (and vice versa). The distinction between a "high" A-class and FA-class on the one hand, and between a "low" A-class and GA-class on the other is so close that many WikiProjects do not recognise A-class at all. B-class is the highest that can be handed out by one person without consulting others. If an article fails to meet one of the higher classifications, it should be downgraded. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Has something changed?
I don't know why, but today various tables in which I'd specified width in em no longer seemed to work. I had to change them to px. Different computers, browsers, so it's not me. Do you know if there has been a meta-change in wikiparsing etc.?

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Tue 16:27, wikitime= 08:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm busy today. Try raising this at WP:VPT. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I just need pointing in the right direction. And yes, it seems like there was a roll-out last night, followed by a fairly rapid roll-back-in. John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Tue 18:53, wikitime= 10:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Typo_rule_disabled_by_a_match_in_a_file_link
Hi, you raised Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs a few months ago but we didn't get to any conclusion. Please start a discussion on the typos talk page to see if we can reach agreement on what level of link checking is needed. Thanks Rjwilmsi  10:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll put some words together tomorrow. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)