User talk:Johnn Francis

Welcome!
Hello, Johnn Francis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! creffett (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperor
Your recent edit broke most of the tables on Holy Roman Emperor - for all of them with a coat of arms, the columns don't line up with the appropriate headings. Please fix them. Agricolae (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You're correct. My mistake. It should be fixed now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Johnn Francis (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Happens to everyone sometimes. Agricolae (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries please
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Italian Fascism does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Yes, I know about this feature. In fact, I justify most of my edits, as you can see by looking at my "User contributions" page. But sometimes, I do get lazy when editing, especially when I see so many other users who generally don't justify their changes, even when they should, and so I feel tempted to do the same. But I know this is no excuse and it's still a mistake on my part. I'll try to be more careful from now on. Thanks again. --Johnn Francis (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Edit summaries save a lot of time for those who are in the patrolling business . Cheers and happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
I am really confused by the whole "autoconfirmed users" and "extended confirmed users" thing. Although I have currently made 753 edits with my account and, according to the "my preferences" page, I am a member of both "autoconfirmed users" and "extended confirmed users" groups, whenever I edit a page that is under "Pending changes protection" status, my edits are not automatically accepted as they should be, but instead need to be manually accepted by another user. This has happened to me twice now, on edits I made to the pages "Charlemagne" and "Sanskrit". What is even stranger is that, in the past, it used to work just fine. In fact, I made an edit to the page "Sanskrit" many months ago that was automatically accepted, but the one I made more recently was not. Why is it different now? Has Wikipedia policy changed? I have read the "Wikipedia:User access levels" and "Wikipedia: Protection policy" pages, and they do not mention anything new. Thank you in advance for your help.

Johnn Francis (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I think what is probably happening here is that a new user or an IP made an edit to a page that had PC protection and then you made an edit before that person's had been reviewed, so yours also became subject to review. It's a little bit of a weird system, but you can see how it works in the table here. Does that make sense?  Go  Phightins  !  17:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tennis at the Summer Olympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Dixon. 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) 05:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Breisgau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zähringen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Nam tiến you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, thank you for warning me. To be honest, and I know this not an excuse for not abiding by the rules, but I’m not actually the one who wrote that text. I simply added back an edit that was made by another contributor but was then taken down by someone else on grounds that I believe were unfounded. But promise, I will be more careful in the future. Johnn Francis (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Tinting of World Cup tables
Hello,

I was wondering whether the incorrect rendering that you perceived in my background colours for the Host and Attendance tables at FIFA World Cup might instead have been due to the fact that I deliberately chose faint colours such as "honeydew" for the different confederations to avoid distraction and obscuring the overlying text. See Wikipedia's article on Web Colors.

If you can find Web Colors that render better on your screen and computer (without drowning the text), perhaps I (or you) can use them instead.

Let me know your thoughts and observations on this page (which I'll Watchlist) or on my own Talk Page.

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for your comment. I was surprised at first to hear you say that the colours on the page were supposed to be visible; I thought for sure they were glitched, because the only ones I could see were lightyellow, and to some extent oldlace as well (although that one appeared quite faded: I saw it as very light yellow when it’s supposed to be more orange-like). On the other hand, azure, honeydew and lavenderblush were completely invisible to me.
 * So I decided to check on several other devices and, surprise, all five colours appeared quite visible. I therefore started fiddling with my own computer (which is actually brand new) because, clearly, the problem was on my end. Changing the brightness and contrast directly on my monitor did no good, so I had to check the settings of my graphics card instead. There, adjusting the brightness and contrast finally solved the issue. I can now see all five colours distinctly. In fact, I took a look at the “Web colors” Wikipedia page that you linked, and prior to my adjustments, I could see basically all colours in the various tables except the colours in the “White colors” table, almost all of which were invisible to me, save for a handful of them that appeared very faded. After my adjustments, I can clearly distinguish all of them without any problem.
 * So I’m sorry, I should have looked a little bit more into it before making my edits on the “FIFA World Cup” page instead of just assuming that it was a glitch straight away. That being said, I do think it would be preferable to use more “vibrant” colours for the different confederations, as I’m pretty certain there are plenty of people out there who are in the same situation as I was and who are probably never going to realise it (in fact, I would most likely never have realised it had you not left this comment). I would suggest using colours from any table of the “Web colors” Wikipedia page other than the “White colors” table. Maybe you can do it? But if you prefer that I do it instead, I don’t really mind. Johnn Francis (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

How's this? I fiddled with the RGB codes (both 3 and 6 digit) trying to make the colours light enough to show the blue wikilinks clearly but dark enough to show up on most systems.

* West Germany was the host of the 1994 Cup, and (reunited) Germany host to the one in 2006

Regards —— Shakescene (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, these look good. I put the settings of my computer back to what they were before to check, and I can clearly see all six colours. On a side note, I noticed that you've already edited the "FIFA World Cup" page, but you haven't added back the colours to the "Attendance" table. Is there a reason why? Should I add them back? Johnn Francis (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks,
 * The reason I hadn’t yet restored the Attendance tints is that (before going through all that work), I wanted to make sure that the tints I had chosen were working properly. Now that they’re OK, I can now do that. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just retinted and boldfaced the years in the attendance table; and adjusted the African colours as above. It was hard to find a brown or tan that would be visibly different from the other colours without making the blue-wikilinked years harder to read. —— Shakescene (talk)

¶ User:Tvx1 just reverted my tinting, which I rolled back (with our rationale and with an indirect, anonymous reference to your request); see the editing history of the World Cup page. Heaven knows I don't look forward to an edit war, or a fight on the Talk:FIFA World Cup, let alone the rigmarole of a Request for Comment and !votes, but your two cents might not hurt should it bounce onto the article's Talk Page. Have a good weekend —— Shakescene (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is just information not worth tinting entire cells for. Wikipedia is not a coloring book. See MOS:COLOR. Bear in mind that there are readers who are partially or even fully colorblind, for whom this creates issues. This article existed decades without such tints, so why would that information suddenly become so vital only in late 2022 that it suddenly must be tinted? We don't color something that we personally consider interesting.Tvx1 23:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Re page protection
Thanks for your report to AIV – to answer your question from there, the appropriate venue to request page protection is Requests for page protection. I protected 1950 FIFA World Cup for two weeks (and did not block any of the IPs); hopefully that will curb disruptive editing. Complex / Rational 23:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for the quick reply and decision-making. Much appreciated! Johnn Francis (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ough (orthography)
The answer to your question in the last summary is yes, but please refrain from using edit summaries as a place to hold a conversation, especially at the expense of making dummy edits. Talk pages are the place for it. Conversing through summaries, especially while reverting, seldom ends in an agreement and is a frequent contributor to disruptive edit wars.

When there is dispute, the standard course of action is the bold-revert-discuss cycle. In this case, you made a "bold" (i.e. not discussed beforehand, with which there's nothing wrong per se) edit, I reverted it, and so what would have ideally ensued was a discussion on the talk page. I'm not without fault about this: I neglected to initiate or encourage a discussion and kept reverting, somehow thinking my summaries would be explanatory and persuasive enough to dissuade you from reverting. I was indeed completely wrong about the British pronunciation of thorough, I'm sorry.

Also please refrain from reverting an entire edit (or an entire series of edits) if you object to only part of it. "not meant to be exhaustive" and "the column is 'Examples'" were in reference to your addition of "Brough, Clough", and from your summaries it doesn't appear you were objecting to my removal. (If you were, it would have been helpful to address it in the summary, though a discussion on the talk would have been even better.) I gave up on the removal because I figured it was neither here nor there, but I've removed Clough because, since not all speakers of English have /x/ in their phonological inventory, any word with syllable-final /x/ invariably has an alternative pronunciation with /k/, which is already accounted for by the IPAc-en notation (see WP:DIAPHONEMIC).

I hope this hasn't come across as too confrontational ("biting", as Wikipedians say). I'm telling you all this solely so that you'll be better equipped to deal with an editing dispute should you find yourself in one again. Nardog (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. . Genre is subjective, so you will require sources to back up your claims of genres here per WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)