[reply]

Thank you!--John (talk)16:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! TheGuild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators:Diannaa (lead),The Utahraptor, andSlon02 andSMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of theGuild of Copy Editors usingAWB on 06:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi John. I'm requesting help with an issue that I feel will be much less contentious this time. I recently asked you aboutUser:Gregory Goble's editing, but things have escalated. GG appears to be a new editor and I have been trying to help him along (e.g.[1] and[2]). He first came to my attention when he injected real-world identifiers of himself (phone number and email address) on talk pages—which I reverted ([3] and[4]). Despite my recommendation, GG today posted more real-world identifiers of himself (including his residential address) which I alsoremoved. I then started to pay more attention to the subject matter of GG's posts and made therecommendation to him that he is not using talk pages for their proper purpose, and that he should not post other people's real-world identifiers. Despite my warning, GG did exactly what I feared andposted a large number of third-party email addresses. The underlying point of course in all this is that we have to AGF in someone's WP username, but there's no way we can AGF when they start to post real-world identifiers supposedly of themselves and other people—e.g. how can we know that the user who created the "Gregory Goble" account is the real-world Gregory Goble (who might not appreciate his personal details being made public on Wikipedia)?
This is now beyond my ability to handle at WP, so I need to ask for assistance. If my recommendation is worth anything in this matter, it is obvious to me that GG is nothing but a trouble-maker, and I would expunge all his edits that contain real-world identifiers, and hand him a lengthy (if not indefinite) block.
Thanks again for your assistance (and I am learning via all this).GFHandel ♬ 05:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...User talk:Risker#Oversight issue, I think - Risker has oversighted the email addressed fromtalk:cold fusion.EdChem (talk)06:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EdChem and Risker for dealing with this while I was off-line. --John (talk)12:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what kind of submarines are you interested in? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions06:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All. WW1 and WW2 for preference. Why do you ask? --John (talk)12:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Mad props to you for recognizing your mistakes and apologizing, and in doing so helping deescalate this mess. If ArbCom takes your admin bit (I don't think they will) and you have to go to RfA to get it back, then you'll have my staunch support there.ScWizard (talk)17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --John (talk)18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my compliments to that.Geometry guy23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's nice of you. I've been very impressed by your contributions there too. Any time you want any copyediting done, or a second opinion on something, just ask. --John (talk)23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise thanks. Please feel free to let me know if you spot anything in my evidence or analyses where you believe I have missed an important point or misrepresented something (as a fellow editor who can be both critical and supportive of MF you probably understand my approach more fully than many others might).Geometry guy00:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. Thanks for taking the time to get involved in this. --John (talk)09:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me toward where you had to answer charges of being my sockpuppet, I believe by Michael C Price, please? I am rather stretched for time right now, unfortunately, and cannot remember even the basic timeframe.John Carter (talk)01:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I remember that. It was a while ago. Was it at AN/I? --John (talk)09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Here you go. --John (talk)10:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.John Carter (talk)00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. One year seems like an eternity in Wiki-time. Do you need any help? --John (talk)00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been over a year that certain parties have been pushing problems on certain content. Having said that, I think and hope, with the source I have arriving on interlibrary loan hopefully later this week, the essential problem will be resolved. If you want to comment on the RfC when it is filed shortly thereafter though, in any way shape or form, I think that would be welcome. I myself acknowledge I have lost my temper with certain parties over the course of the discussion, but one of them is currently under sanctions for their recent conduct, and I hope that the basic content dispute will be resolved when the RfC is concluded.John Carter (talk)01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to post something on an RfC when it is posted, please let me know. Meantime, if you haven't already done so, it might be quite classy to apologise to Michael C Price for the error you made about the sock allegation. I remember that incident as an amusing one, sorry if you don't, and especially if I treated it flippantly, then or now. --John (talk)01:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me, which error did I make there? As I remember, he was the one who accused you of being my sock, even though I think you've been here longer. If I'm wrong in that, please let me know. But I can understand how you treated it flippantly, because it was more than a bit of a silly claim for him to raise, but that editor has a long and somewhat documented history of insults and other misconduct, sometimes to distract from what might be the basic weakness of his arguments, and I tend to think his allegation of your being a sock was in keeping with his general history. The RfC will be raised about Religion and History issues and included in the appropriate categories, when it is raised.John Carter (talk)01:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's probably no big deal, but it was User:Ovadyah who accused me of being your sock, not Michael. --John (talk)01:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It probably isn't a big deal, but that editor is perhaps the only other problem we have had regarding theEbionites, an early Christian group important for being the originators of low Christology and apparently the source of a name which is used by at least two non-notable current groups or individuals as descriptions of their own beliefs. Three guesses who those two individuals are, by the way. And thanks for the clarification.John Carter (talk)01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,Hope you don't mind me posting here - our conversation on my own talk page seems to have died a death...

As you pointed out, I can't edit the page relating to Paddy Power (the company) so I have compiled a list of up to date facts with links on the discussion page, I was hoping someone would come along and update but to date that hasn't happened. Is there anything you could recommend I do in order to ensure the page is accurate?

As you can see, the updates I am referring to are simple matters of fact rather than opinion, or attempts to promote the company.

Cheers

Therealpaddypower (talk)13:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These look ok. I will look at them properly tonight. --John (talk)18:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done what you asked. Feel free in future to ping me here, that is perfectly ok to do. --John (talk)22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, that is much appreciated, if I have further changes I'll let you know.Therealpaddypower (talk)09:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. --John (talk)19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John. I think you asked me to notify you when this went to FAC so you could look it over again, but I could be wrong. If so, feel free to ignore me. ;-)Ed ^{[talk][majestic titan]}09:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Funnily enough I was just reading it when I saw your message. It looks extremely good. --John (talk)10:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I won't complain...! I'm off to bed (it's 4am here), but I will address any problems you find tomorrow. Thanks John, I really appreciate it.Ed ^{[talk][majestic titan]}10:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John ... I could be wrong, but I think the delegates will want some clarification whether you're supporting or almost ready to support. And they'd like whatever is in bold at the start of the line. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk)16:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did that. --John (talk)17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cast your eye over thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stiarts_erid please.21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF18:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them for the personal attack in the edit summary. I decline to take a side in the actor/actress question. That one might benefit from a third opinion. --John (talk)19:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has ignored your warning and done it again and, judging by the edit summary, has no intention of stopping as per "this could go on a long time".21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours. If they persist the next block will be a lot longer. --John (talk)20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you like... do something? Please?Ealdgyth -Talk23:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and warned, --John (talk)23:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was busy filing journal articles so I can find them again (I'm up to three big huge file cabinet drawers of them... ugh!)Ealdgyth -Talk02:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for discussing with the user as I probably should have done. --John (talk)18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires request you review here.PumpkinSkytalk00:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will have a look. --John (talk)18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Today I created a template{{Google+}} and applied it to about 80 articles. All was going well until I stumbled across one editor (user:Yworo) who objected to the use of the template, and then preceded to remove the work I had done in almost all the articles I had edited. Please note that I did not add content to any of the articles; rather, I reformatted content. The reformatting work I did helps things like: consistency of links, and doing "what links here"-type searches. Note that Yworo was the only editor who objected to my changes (in about 80 articles). As Yworo quoted policy (or at least his interpretation of the policy), there was nothing I could do except watch most of a day's work be undone. As you might expect I wasn't happy with the situation, and you can read an exchangehere (although note that I removed two of his posts from my page so you will have to see the history if you want the full exchange).
There are four issues arising from this about which I would like to seek your advise:

1. I'm not happy with the speed and lack of consultation Yworo used to revert my work. Note that my work was not controversial because I was only reformatting existing content (not adding)—so what was the hurry?
2. Yworo's comment "By the way, your attitude sucks and is the main reason that I am doing it now rather than later" gives a disturbing insight into his ability to work in a community. In short, his perception of my attitude is not a good enough reason as to how fast he undoes my work, or as to how little he is required to discuss things prior to undoing my work.
3. Yworo has proven to be selective in his reversions of my work. It's undeniable that he picked the soft targets in removing links from the "External links" section of the articles I edited today. For example, when questioned as to why he didn't delete the links that worry him so from theBritney Spears#External links article (which I also reformatted earlier today), he could provide no satisfactory explanation. I'm sure that that article is visited more than all the others I edited today combined, so shouldn't that one be the most important for him to apply policy? I'm confident that he knows that I'm actually a pretty reasonable editor—and quite a bit more reasonable than any of the hundreds of editors who are likely to cause his life to be a misery after he removes links from the "External links" section of the Spears article. I guess I'm also a soft target in his eyes.
4. Even though I'm not overly happy about the events of today, I can actually live with all the above (and was doing so) when something bizarre happened. Yworo suddenly popped up andundid one of myedits made over four days ago—in an article unrelated to the events of today. This was in an article that I don't believe Yworo has had any recent interest, and his edit appears to be both antagonistic and stalking in nature. I reverted his edit with the observation that the community has been comfortable with my edit during the past week (although there has been one IP editor who hasn't liked it). Yworo's edit at that article has now made me re-evaluate his ability to act fairly when it comes to interpreting and applying WP's "rules".
   

Anyhow, sorry to bother you with this, and thanks for any help and advise that you can provide.
GFHandel ♬ 08:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GFHandels "work" today was creating a{{Google+}} template and spamming it into the external links section of multiple articles. Yes, insome cases he replaced an existing URL, but in others headded the link to an article which did not yet have it. This is a clear violation ofWP:EL and especially the spirit ofWikipedia:External links/Perennial websites.Yworo (talk)09:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I was busy today and didn't see this until now. I will try to give a more detailed response within the next few hours. --John (talk)18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Please note that the drama has widened:Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_9#Template:Google.2B andUser_talk:Yworo#Your_removal_of_links_to_social_networking_sites. The second of those links is interesting because it contains a cogent argument that throws doubt on the basis supporting Yworo's argument for the removal of my work yesterday. Cheers.GFHandel ♬ 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad it is being centrally discussed at TfD as that seems like a good way to resolve this. I would ask that you both avoid any mass additions or removal of the template pending the closing of the TfD. --John (talk)19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regardingMalleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be foundhere. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish.Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of comment are you looking for, beyond my block log entry, my AN/I and user talk comments at the time, and the evidence I gave in the case? Could you please let me know and I will try to comply. Thanks. --John (talk)18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very telling that there's no clear link for the posting that resulted in any block, just a wiffly "civility" or "personal attack" thingy. It ought not to be necessary to be asking administrators why they blocked or unblocked, proper records ought to be kept.MalleusFatuorum19:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to just add the AN/I comments and my user talk diffs to the table; I don't think I really have anything else to add. --John (talk)20:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the table, there is nowhere obvious to post them, so I'll pop them here instead.

• AN/I post justifying my unblock
• AN/I post pointing out Hawkeye's uncivil "koala" comment after reblocking
• Comment at Thumperward's talk regarding my unblock
• Reply at my user talk to Thumperward'squery about wheel-warring
• Initial statement to Arbcom
• Second statement acknowledging legitimate concerns about my being seen as potentially too involved to take admin action.

As always, I welcome any feedback on my actions. It strikes me as a chance to get as much as possible resolved about civility and its enforcement. --John (talk)21:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed your question (I'm sorry). To be honest, I don't really know what ArbCom expects of this; I just notified you – as all other blocking/unblocking admins – because the participants, there, might discuss your actions... That said, you can post your comments on the talk page.Salvio^{Let's talk about it!}21:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. I'll do that. --John (talk)21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a bit of a spat about the usage of the "O.S.B" initials in various monastic biographies - as well as using it in the body of the article such as "the monastic historian, David Knowles, O.S.B"... per our precedent with Muhammed, I've always omitted such initials - they add nothing to the article I don't think, but I've been reverted a couple of times lately and would like someone else's opinion. Adam's article is the last spot but it's happened a couple of times elsewhere. No monk in the 11th or 12th century would have used such initials - and I think they are anachronistic - nor do I think we should use the OSB initials whenever a monk is mentioned. TPS input welcomed!Ealdgyth -Talk18:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's an interesting question, thank you for asking. Let me have a think about it. Is it being discussed centrally anywhere? --John (talk)19:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I am caught in a BRD cycle that seems to be BRR instead ... where I just dropped it.Ealdgyth -Talk19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a job finding any sort of edit-warring on the initials. Would you object if I raised this at the Christianity project page, with a note at the biography project page? --John (talk)20:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me dig for where he just instantly reverted back after I reverted him... few moments.Ealdgyth -Talk20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes ...Dominic of Evesham - where I got the lovely (and oh so not NPOV) edit summary "this is a Benedictine article, use Benedictine practice")Ealdgyth -Talk20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note we're also discussing over at Malleus' page ...Ealdgyth -Talk20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at Daniel the Monk's talk page. I am sure this can be resolved. --John (talk)20:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Raisedhere.--John (talk)21:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied there - I thinkWP:CREDENTIAL covers the usage of OSB in the body text near the David Knowles bit - that's the real sticking point to me.Ealdgyth -Talk21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, sorry I forgot to include that bit. Thanks for adding it. --John (talk)21:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC discussing the above issue may be of interest to you.Dpmuk (talk)16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of me. I commented briefly there. --John (talk)21:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do sohere. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of thecoordinators,Nick-D (talk) andEd ^{[talk][majestic titan]}23:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)You were sent this message because you are a listed as amember of theMilitary history WikiProject.[reply]

You removed my{{cn}} request without providing a citation. Please don't do that. Do you have a reference for the assertion that Palmer "was being blackmailed by one of his former lovers, the daughter of a Staffordshire policeman"? If not, I shall remove it.Cusop Dingle (talk)19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, either remove the challenged material or restore the tag. It wasn't clear to me what the cn tag was challenging, hence the importance of communication beyond tagging. It also helps if you date these tags by using the {{cn|date=January 2012}} syntax. This helps other editors to know how long the information has been challenged for. --John (talk)20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that's why you removed it with an edit summary of "ce" then I suppose?Cusop Dingle (talk)20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, yes. It stands for "copy editing". There was some pretty awful writing there, wasn't there? Still needs more work in my opinion. --John (talk)20:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you don't want to be serious about this. See if I care.Cusop Dingle (talk)20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean. You added a tag without explaining what it meant, I removed it in the course of copyediting, you came here with your brusque "don't do that", I explained myself and removed the offending unreferenced passage. What's your point? --John (talk)20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let me spell it out. I placed a{{cn}} tag on a sentence in the article, which expands to the comment "Citation needed", which is reasonably self-explanatory and which you clearly understand very well. You removed in the course of various other edits with the explanation "ce", and did not provide either a citation or an explanation of why you deleted it. I asked politely for you not to do that. Now you say that I'm being brusque by quoting my request without the rather important word "Please". You are giving a very good impression of someone who doesn't want to have a constructive conversation on the subject. In any event, I am not interested in pursuing the matter further. Feel free to have the last word.Cusop Dingle (talk)21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You felt a sense of ownership over the tag even though you didn't see fit to say anywhere what exactly the tag was supposed to challenge. And I hurt your feelings by taking it down and removing the challenged material. Sorry about that. Next time though, consider explaining what you are challenging in talk or with a hidden comment, and dating your tag. Any one of those courses of action would have avoided your apparent hurt feelings. It's also worth remembering that these tags are no substitute for improving referencing and writing quality. --John (talk)21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting article – I'm sure I've seen a TV adaptation of the case – but as you say, it's rather poorly written.MalleusFatuorum21:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read a book in the holidays about great Victorian murders and it's piqued my interest. I also want to reread Orwell's "Decline of the English Murder" some time. Thanks for the copyedit by the way. --John (talk)21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Awbtrawlofcorkdone.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Magioladitis (talk)16:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. --John (talk)22:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly the idea of using edit summaries and actually discussing when we are reverted (and I even started a discussion on the talk page!) is too much. I have a pounding headache - help!Ealdgyth -Talk19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hope your headache is better. --John (talk)22:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to arelated article, I thought I'd let you know aboutWikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofStanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visitthe project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk)22:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I stumbled acrossEtnia Barcelona when I was applying templates to links in the External references section. As it was still on my watchlist it came to my attention again due to a spate of edits today. I had a read of it and it appears to be a folksy advertisement written by someone involved with the product. If the article should survive, I was thinking that it should perhaps be reduced to little more than a few sentences in the lede. A major problem (for me anyway) is that the sources are not written in a language I understand. Anyhow, I am keen to know what you suggest would be the best course of action for the article? Cheers.GFHandel ♬ 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, I see what you mean. Let me have a think about that. --John (talk)22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed it, it was horrible. I also warned an obvious coi account that had been editing it recently. --John (talk)23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golly. Youredit was more brutal than I was imagining; but I think you are justified. Thanks for looking at it.GFHandel ♬ 23:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It might be a candidate for AfD if you can be bothered. --John (talk)00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John: Thanks for you effort to re-start the discussion on PoC's talk page, but, to be honest with you, I don't see PoC as an editor who I'll be interested in conversing with in the future. That's the way it goes here, as I'm sure you know, sometimes you click, sometimes you don't, and sometimes you find out that an editor you thought was problematic turns out to be OK, andvice versa. (All those things have happened to me in the course of my 6 1/2 years here.) So, I'm just going to try to stay away from PoC as much as possible, especially since the point of contention was so minor.

Thanks again.Beyond My Ken (talk)02:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, any time. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk)10:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, Thanks for your quick response to recent edits by Glenn Berger PhD, assistant recording engineer. I agree with your diagnosis of self-promotion. ("The only thing he knew how to do/ Was to keep on keepin' on like a bird that flew/ Tangled up in blue.") Best,Mick gold (talk)

You're very welcome, thanks for the comment. --John (talk)14:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I have re-added cleanup tags atRyanair with a note at the talk page indicating why. It is a bit unclear to me why you removed them in the first place, talk page or not, as it is a horrible article that needs a lot of work. Since you clearly have an interest, I hope you will enjoy addressing the issues. Regards -Cloudz67915:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and for correctly adding your comment to the article's talk page to indicate your concerns. I am a bit mystified why you would add these tags if you are working on the article with a view to eliminate the need for them yourself. As to improving the article I will see what I can do. No promises. --John (talk)16:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure an article of 90,000 bytes is too much for any one editor to fully clean up! Take care -Cloudz67916:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles:The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews:Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay:Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed:Hchc's English Castles

Anyone an admin over on Commons? I think the contributions ofthis contributor might be adding copyrighted photos to commons - note the watermarks on two of the three images uploaded.Ealdgyth -Talk04:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not but Iasked Sandstein who is. --John (talk)06:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has moved them to de-identify the person named but sees no indication of copyvio. --John (talk)12:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thanks very much for fixing issues onSinking of the RMS Titanic. The article is currently going through GA review, which looks like it will be completed quite soon. When it is, the intention is to nominate it for FA with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page for the anniversary of the sinking on 14/15 April. Would you be up for helping with the FA review process when the article has been nominated? Your help was invaluable on my last FA,Battle of Vukovar, and I'd love to have the opportunity to work with you again.Prioryman (talk)21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I will happily do what I can to help with this. --John (talk)06:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks very much. It's passed GA now so I've nominated it for FA - seeWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/archive1.Prioryman (talk)00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.John (talk)

Hi John, thank you for your interest in the tool. I've approved your account, please feel free to login and test the system.

As part of this beta test, we'd like everyone to test every aspect of the tool. This includes acting as blocked users - we'd like each of you to file at least two appeals and respond to them as though you are blocked. Please try to act like a blocked user new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with common terms and probably a bit frustrated at the situation.

When reviewing appeals, please act as though you are reviewing real blocks. You should be able to comment on any appeal, regardless of who has reserved it; reservations only ensure that reviewers don't send conflicting emails.

If you encounter any bugs (things not appearing to work right, and especially error messages), please file a bug report onJIRA. You will need to register an account there. New features can be suggested there as well, but please add the "after-beta" label to these so we can easily prioritize between bugs that must be fixed and features that can be added later.

Thank you again for volunteering to beta-test.TheHelpfulOne00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk)00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert toStonehenge of the edit byRomeinsekeizer (talk ·contribs). There is some clear COI here - the user is Lex Ritman in real life (admitted on his talk page) and is writing about himself and these non-notable works in this and other articles. I have left a COI warning but you might want to keep an eye on his activities and offer guidance as appropriate. --Bob Re-born (talk)12:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I will keep an eye on this. --John (talk)12:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this, then you clearly should do! I haz W-t-P PJ's ;PPesky (talk …stalk!)18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I readThe Tao of Pooh a few years ago and it is excellent. I believe all good children's books should contain this sort of higher wisdom, both for the children and for their parents who have to read to them--John (talk)18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

There is far more to Pooh than we were ever aware of, as kids. I've given the basic set ofWinnie the Pooh,The House at Pooh Corner,When we Were Very Young, andNow We are Six to various grandchildren this past Christmas. Nobody should have to grow up without them :o) Have you read the funNow We Are Sixty? Good for several giggles.Pesky (talk …stalk!)18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen that one, I will look next time I go to the library. Thank you. BesidesPooh, other great children's books I have never fallen out of love with and look forward to rediscovering with my own kids includeTreasure Island,Alice in Wonderland,Huckleberry Finn, and several works byIvan Southall andNicholas Fisk. --John (talk)18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swallows and Amazons?The Water Babies? I'm going to drown in nostalgia, if I don't stop, lol!Pesky (talk …stalk!)18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not read either of them I'm afraid, though I have heard of them of course. There's alwaysEnid Blyton andRichmal Crompton as well, though I fear those may not have aged so well as the first lot I mentioned. --John (talk)18:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and my own immediate offspring (the eldest of whom has just turned 30! Eeek!) were taught to read on Beatrix Potter, of course :o)Pesky (talk …stalk!)19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked BP when I was young, but my kids like it. I'm reading (almost finished)Red Rabbit byTom Clancy, which uses Potter's terminology to describe defectors from the old Soviet Union during the Cold War. --John (talk)20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like ... aninteresting mixture!Pesky (talk …stalk!)10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

you made changed to theJeremy Clarkson article wit the comment "please only restore with valid refs ie not youtube or the series itself". I'm a very new Wikipedia user (started yesterday and these were my first changes; adding a few references and a few new cars to the ownership list). I saw that you are a Wikipedia administrator, so could you help me in telling me how can I reference the series, since there are a lot of information on the Top Gear TV series about the guys, for example what cars they drive in real life. I tried googling on how to make such references (references to TV series), but didn't find anything useful.

One example is the Ford GT, which was featured in the episode (season 7, episode 3) for about 20 minutes (each episode is 60mins long). Jeremy talked a lot about the car, how he had owned the same car twice, so at least I see it as irrefutable.

You might understand that deleting all changes that a new user has made (it took me hours to find those missing references) is very discouraging. :-(

Help me out if you can. Thanks for understanding.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGreyEmminence (talk •contribs)14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I had not noticed you were a new user. I suggest in the first instance readingWP:5P and especiallyWP:V as this is the policy these additions were in violation of. --John (talk)14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if I understand theWP:V correctly, I used the source (Jeremy Clarkson) as the source itself when citing the Top Gear episode and therefore it wasn't in accordance with the rules? One reference (Ford Fiesta 2012) useshttp://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/jeremy-clarkson-ford-fiesta-2012-01-06 as a reference where the source (Jeremy) told what car he had selected. How is this different and is there any way I can reference the series itself?GreyEmminence (talk)14:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is similar to that between what I (a non-notable Wikipedia editor) might say to my friends in the pub, and what a hypothetical newspaper or magazine might say in reporting my words. Can you see the difference? You're right in that topgear.com is not a particularly good source though. Maybe we should take that one down as well. I also have serious doubts about how useful ("encyclopedic") this entire section is. WouldBritannica have such a section? I have my doubts... --John (talk)15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You did a great job copyediting theBattle of Vukovar, and I thought to ask you to take a look at theAdriatic Sea article which was recently expanded. I'd like to nominate the article as a FAC at some point, although it may be better to head for GAN first to fix any outstanding issues beforehand. My concerns regarding the article are primarily its structure and the fact that it must be riddled with grammatical errors (I'm not a native speaker of English). Could you please have a look at the article and provide some feedback? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk)14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I will be happy to have a look. --John (talk)15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, Virginia here from America Abroad Media. Sorry if I am not following proper protocol, but our organization information is a bit out of date. Would it be improper to ask you to review and update? Thanks much.— Precedingunsigned comment added byVaclairmont (talk •contribs)21:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be delighted to help Virginia. What is it you would like to add? --John (talk)21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John,

My name is Jonathan Obaruser:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)07:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Sorry to bother you. I'm not faultingthis edit of yours but didn't you forget to remove something else once you were finished? Don't worry, though, it was fixed withthis edit.ClaretAsh10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thank you for clearing up after me. --John (talk)10:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	I saw the Apologia section on your userpage. I must say that in a community riddled with pessimism, criticism, conflict and other silliness, it is fabulous to find a user so passionate about the Project. I wish more users were as willing to show their pride and faith in Wikipedia.ClaretAsh10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you, that was very generous of you. --John (talk)11:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Its an amazing gap between the purity of his voice and the bad press he got from the mid 80s on. One thing that always strikes me; its his saving grace in my openion, is that he was the only real friendNick Drake had and he did a of of good there, fair play. I mention this only because you said before that you admire him, and that shows a lot of taste. I saw you page moved Punk's not dead, Exploited were such a great band early on, but it didnt last, they never recaptured that initial burst of brilliance. They are still going though, actually most of the early Oi bands are still at at, plugging away. Yikes. 02:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Martyn was a genius and like many geniuses was a tortured soul. Yeah, I had that album and I think the point of the title was the double meaning. I wasn't much of a fan of the band; too rough for me. The Damned and the Clash were more my style from that era. --John (talk)19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how can i find out if i can use an image or not? I cant find the original photographer. I have asked. I have read some of the policies but I am not quite understood if its free public or fair use. Kind of confusing. thanks for any help.Chekitoutbro (talk)05:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this may be difficult. Your only recourse may be to take the photo yourself. Occasionally browsing thecommons or looking for free photos on Flickr can be productive. What was the photo of? --John (talk)00:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks John for your speedy response. So any photos off of Flickr are okay?Chekitoutbro (talk)00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, only thefree ones are suitable for Wikipedia. --John (talk)01:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In discussing the Arbcom Civility case atMF talk, I shared some thoughts on your involvement - in what I hope is a positive way, as I admire the way you have handled the fallout. You may have seen it anyway, but I wanted to let you know as a courtesy.Geometry guy22:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note and for the time and care you have put into this whole shenanigan. --John (talk)23:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedChinese aircraft carrier ex-Varyag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNikolayev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onGavin Webster requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visitthe page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged forspeedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contactone of these administrators to request that the administratoruserfy the page or email a copy to you.Jeancey (talk)23:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, you recently removed a deletion tag fromGavin Webster. Because Wikipedia policydoes not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, anautomated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, -SDPatrolBot (talk)23:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John. You have new messages atJeancey's talk page.
Message added23:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jeancey (talk)23:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the arbitration case talk page about your proposed admonishment.[5] It seems likely that I'll be admonished as well, so maybe we can have an admonishment party?MalleusFatuorum03:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nice one. Not sure what I will do with an admonishment. Looks like the arbs have missed the point as per usual. --John (talk)03:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I'll do with mine. Can you guess what that might be?MalleusFatuorum03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine. I suppose it's like points on your license. A bit of a fart in a thunderstorm in the big scale of the challenges facing Wikipedia. --John (talk)04:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but more potentially serious for you than for me, as you're an administrator.MalleusFatuorum04:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well. I don't use the "tools" that often anyway and I don't really derive any pleasure from the "status" it may confer for some, especially after this shambles. --John (talk)04:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I ruled the world I'd have desysoped Thumperward immediately, but he seems to be escaping any sanctions. For now.MalleusFatuorum04:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, is it possible you could take a look at the conversation on the Ramones page please? There's another editor there who it seems to me thinks that he owns the page among other criticisms I could offer. I'm trying to work with the person and I'm more than happy to compromise but that seems to be a waste of time.

Any input you can bring is much appreciated. Alterntiavely, if stuff on the Ramones page doesn't interest you, if you know of someone else who would be interested it would be great if you could involve them?

Socheid (talk)12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. --John (talk)12:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see I was too slow on this one, for which I apologise. It was silly of you to get blocked formaking multiple reverts but I have neverthelessasked the blocking admin if leniency can be applied here. I will give you more advice when I can and again I am sorry for being too busy to deal with this earlier. Never edit-war; it is one of the few really clear and easy ways to get blocked I'm afraid. --John (talk)22:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

Thanks for your reply. I see that you intervened re the block placed upon and I thank you for that also and the good intent behind this.

Could you give me some more clarification re this edit war stuff please? Throughout that particular dispute I on numerous occasions did what seemed to be fair and reasonable re consensus and collaborative working such as:-

• request input from others via the punk project talk page twice and once from the rock music project talk page
• request input from other people in wikipedia such as the ping to you earlier today, requests to gwen gale, other people who I have pinged individually

Also I don't understand how when the other person repeatedly stonewalls my edits with blanket reverts and very abrupt comments that indicate no attempt at working together (have you read some of the comments, this person thinks he is god), this is deemed acceptable. When I undo edits when there was support from another person for what I said, it is deemed edit warring even though there was no other support for the person making my comments the majority view. Then when today other people have made comments against the edits I made, I accepted that as consensus and pushed the matter no further. Why is it I get blocked and the other person doesn't? This seems very unfair. I don't for a second expect to have my point accepted all the time and I have consistently been happy to go with majority view. That isn't the case for the other person but the other person seems to be regarded as the good guy in this and I have condemned as the villain.

Thanks again for sparing some time and effort on this earlier.

Regards,Socheid (talk)00:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a pleasure to be able to help you. One thing to keep in mind is that these things aren't done quickly; a more patient approach will bear dividends. Another is that folk who have written a good quality article like that one tend to be defensive about their work. I quite agree you were treated badly there, hence my intervention. I said at article talk that there is much for all involved to learn from what happened and this includes you. A majority isn't always equivalent to a consensus either. Thanks for all the good work you do; hope that this was not too bruising for you and that you can learn from it and move on. --John (talk)02:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know we've been talking elsewhere at the ArbCom case talkpage, but I'd like to make it official here.

John, I understand that you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, both under your current name and when you were known as Guinnog. You have over 100,000 edits, andhave been an administrator since 2006. However, I feel that recent events have shown that you are not using your administrator access with the necessary good judgment.

On December 21, 2011,Malleus Fatuorum (talk ·contribs) engaged in uncivil behavior,[6][7] prompting numerous complaints and an eventual redaction of his comment.[8] Soon after, administratorThumperward (talk ·contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum indefinitely, initially with a minimal block rationale,[9] and then a more extensive one at ANI two hours later.[10] One hour after Thumperward blocked, you unblocked,[11] without any attempt to contact the blocking admin, even though he had said at ANI that he was writing up a rationale.[12] The ANI thread had only been open for 20 minutes, but you claimed a "strong consensus" to unblock, which again, was a mis-reading of the situation. Further, you were self-admittedly involved in situations related to Malleus,[13] which was yet another reason that you should not have used tools. Your actions were a violation ofBlocking policy, were extremely disruptive, and contributed to what became a majorarbitration case. The arbitrators are currently voting on a proposed decision, and are leaning towards a formal admonishment of your actions, but even so, you do not seem to understand the seriousness of what you did, and are not acknowledging that an admonishment is appropriate.[14]

In my opinion, an admonishment is the minimum that should happen, and in actuality, your administrator access should be removed. Whether or not the arbitrators choose to do this, remains to be seen. In the meantime, I am formally requesting that you resign as an administrator. Sincerely, --Elonka19:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" and "formally" in what sense, Elonka?Geometry guy19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How nice of you to take all this trouble on a poison pen letter for me, Elonka, I truly didn't know you cared. You may not know that I used to belong to theadministrators open to recall scheme, and if I was still a member I would advise you to use that mechanism. When I left it in 2009 however, it was in large part due to witnessing your shameless dishonesty and duplicity inpromising in your RfA to resign if enough people asked you to, and thenimmediately defaulting on this seemingly solemn undertaking as soon as someone tried to use it against you. As well as impressing me with the uselessness of a voluntary recall process, it also left me with the distinct impression of you as an untrustworthy person. Since your involvement in the Malleus-civility case I have not only renewed this impression of you as being slippery and careless of ethical behaviour, but have developed it further, as I have now seen the vindictive and nasty side of you as well. You are, to me, the epitome of everything an admin should not be. You do little to no content improvement work but instead spend your time and energy sniffing around criticising others' conduct, seemingly mindless of the impression of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness that this gives to those witnessing your behaviour. I was thinking about handing in my bit if criticised to the same degree as the other admins involved in the case, and if somebody whose opinion I respected had made this request I would certainly have given it serious consideration. Reading those words from you has helped me to decide that if I am to be desysoped it will have to be by Arbcom, so in a way I suppose I owe you thanks for helping me. Nevertheless, I would respectfully ask you to please, never, ever post here again for any reason. Any further baiting, badgering or vindictive machinations you feel the need to undertake can be conducted elsewhere. Thanks, --John (talk)19:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Sorry, but I find this to be getting ridiculous. A block of John was not even worthy of consideration in the recentaction, and anything that happened in or around the heat of those proceedings must be balanced against John's record (which demonstrates him to be one of the best editors and administrators at Wikipedia). The Arbitrators were fully cognisant of John's history and worth as a Wikipedian, and we shouldall do likewise—and move on.GFHandel ♬ 19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this civility case will be closed very soon, as it seems to have served whatever purpose it could and the atmosphere surrounding seems to be becoming increasingly less helpful.MalleusFatuorum01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thelast minute flurry of activity can be one of the most unseemly aspects of an Arbcom case. However, it is also an opportunity to spot editors manipulating the situation, and arbitrators who are easily manipulated.Geometry guy01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here!How beauteous mankind is!O brave new world!

That has such people in it!

--John (talk)09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion, I myself tend to agree that, until and unless ArbCom specifically requests removal of adminship, resignation is possibly/probably uncalled for. ArbCom can, and has, requested or required in the past that individuals lose their admin status, or take part in a confirmation RfA. They do not seem to have done so in this case, and I believe that they are probably better judges of what rises to that level than we are, having been specifically elected for that purpose, among others.John Carter (talk)19:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sprota Looks to be getting pretty heated. Agricolae is generally a good calm editor - with a firm grasp of policy. I had a bit of a run in with the other two editors atGundred, Countess of Surrey ... but I just walked away rather than continue to argue. Any chance you can use your "oil on stormy waters" approach?Ealdgyth -Talk02:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, I will have a look when I can. --John (talk)09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Saints Star Award
		Things don't always work out the way they should in here in the short-term, but they tend to work out better over the longer haul. Whether you're admonished, named and shamed, belittled, targeted or anything else that comes along in this place, there are still folks with reason in here, and they/we know you to be a man of character, trustworthiness, introspection, and moral integrity. What matters more: the truth, or the labels? Best,SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandy, that's appreciated. You're definitely one of the people I value in this place. --John (talk)17:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there...Modernist (talk)18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I think you probably know that the barnstar in question is generally for people who contribute to saints-related content, and probably isn't directly appropriate in this instance. Naughty, naughty girl. ;) However, I myself agree that it is probably generally appropriate in this instance, given that this editor has had to put up with, well, rather a lot over time, including (as he and I know) some really ridiculous accusations, and still tries to see the best of other contributors. At least in the standard Catholic tradition, the one I myself know best, I agree John might be among those who come closest to possessing the behavioral attributes, including forgiveness, of those who are most generally referred to as saints.John Carter (talk)19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Modernist and John for your kind comments. The only thing that worries me here; don't you have to be dead to qualify for sainthood? --John (talk)20:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't know that-- I went through my barnstar page and copied the one I thought most appropriate, and I didn't get it for work on saints.SandyGeorgia (Talk)22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really appreciated receiving it from you and I am sorry to be flippant about it. I would certainly never claim to be a saint, just an honest joe trying his best. Thanks again Sandy. --John (talk)22:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as one of the editors who deals with that content, I personally have no objections to seeing it given out to individuals who have displayed "saintly" qualities, like, well, almost infinite forbearance, like John here. And, I guess I could see how Sandy, having to deal with the sometimes, um, heated conversations regarding FA, probably has displayed similar characteristics.John Carter (talk)21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely kind of you both. --John (talk)22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your sainthood may be about to be challenged bythis; certainly mine will be. It makes me wonder whether there's any point doing anything here, as it all ends up being grey goo.MalleusFatuorum00:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me. Let me have a look when I get a moment.--John (talk)12:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation from theGuild of Copy Editors TheGuild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in theirMarch 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators:Dank,Diannaa,Stfg, and Coordinator emeritusSMasters.19:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name fromour mailing list.

An arbitration case regarding Civility enforcement has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hawkeye7 (talk ·contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.
2. Thumperward (talk ·contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee.
3. John (talk ·contribs) is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.
4. Malleus Fatuorum (talk ·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. Further, Malleus Fatuorm is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.
5. Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective.
6. All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.
7. The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on anad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.
8. Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to theAdministrators' noticeboard, or toArbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks are to be logged atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee:
Mlpearc(powwow)02:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Happy days. You stand admonished, but you did the right thing. No one was going to come out of this unscathed anyway. Trouts make really good eats.Drmies (talk)03:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a terrible waste of everybody's time. I think this Arbcom is even more pusillanimous and disorganised than the last one. Volunteers don't have to be amateurs. Thank you for your kind message of support; I wish I could say I have learned a lot from the case or that I have developed as a Wikipedian, but sadly most of what I have learned has been about the pompous and inept failings of our court of highest appeal. Never mind. --John (talk)08:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The finding against you is disheartening... you admit to one thing minor thing and get admonished for something completely unrelated? I am incredulous. I have mixed feelings about the findings towards Hawkeye/MF findings, but they blew it with you.---Balloonman^{Poppa Balloon}16:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed but not surprised. It was a waste of time taking the case if they weren't going to issue decisive guidance on what to do when someone is inappropriately blocked. As it stands, if someone else I know (you for example) were indefinitely blocked by a rogue admin, the case suggests that I wouldn't be allowed to unblock you without a long discussion at AN/I. It's also very unfortunate that the hard-of-thinking crowd focused on Malleus's use of the wordcunt when taunted by Spitfire, something even he wasn't disputing was uncivil, and not the actual incident he was first blocked for which started the whole sorry circus rolling. Ironically the initial allegation hemade, that some (unnamed) admins are "dishonest cunts", is not only unquestionably true,("an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary), but has been strongly confirmed by the conduct of several in this very case. Far from clarifying either of the main issues that people felt needed clarifying, it's been a strange exercise in justifying the predetermined "punishments" which were arrived at first. I could have predicted on Christmas Day that Thumperward and I would get some kind of slap on the wrist, Hawkeye would be desysoped and Malleus would be topic-banned. Some of the contortions some people have performed to arrive at these verdicts have been highly dishonest. Arbcom has been the weakest link in this community for years now, and there is no prospect of it ever getting better. I still like this place but the appetite for drama that some editors have is outrageous, and we don't seem very good as a community at solving it. This was another missed opportunity to do so, in my opinion. --John (talk)19:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case had a veryAlice in Wonderland feel about it. It did indeed seem obvious what the outcome would be long before any of the so-called evidence was collected. Which begs the question of why bother collecting it in the first place? Some editors such as Balloonman, and especially Karanacs, went to a great deal of trouble to present the facts, but they went largely ignored in the face of preconceptions and the wisdom of the mob. I could even have predicted which arbitrators would vote for my being banned, no matter what the evidence.MalleusFatuorum19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles:The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews:Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed:Ian Rose discusses article assessments

Hello John.I came across your user page while browsing this and that and I really like the layout. I do not know how to make templates and am not any use with HTML things, but I would like to make my userpage neater. I'm learning a little bit as I go about what exactly different lines of code or bunches of code seem to do, when I try copy-pasting different things into sandbox. But, I am nowhere near good enough to build it from scratch.

May I use your layout?

Sincerely,KelidimariKelidimari (talk)19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you are welcome. --John (talk)20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very muchly! =^.^=Kelidimari (talk)18:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing me how it works here on Wikipedia, enjoy hiding controversial facts about corporations. I had changed my sources, yet you still think rather then making any comments like the good users you just to remove my section. Hope I can put a smile on your face by letting you know I see how it works and I want nothing to do with it.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNavstev0 (talk •contribs)

I'm awfully sorry you feel that way. I believe three editors have removed the material you were trying to add, on grounds ofneutrality andreliable sourcing. I think there is a good explanation on the article talk about why this material, sourced as it is, is not suitable for this encyclopedia article. Nevertheless I would not automatically be against some kind of well-sourced and appropriately written mention of this incident. I will comment at article talk about this and I urge you not to be completely discouraged or exasperated (some of your edit summaries have been a bit over the top as others have mentioned). Hang in there, try some other articles besides this one. There is a lot of work to be done if you do want to help out. Best wishes, --John (talk)23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Thatcher, I fail to see why you restored such a huge amount of information that is so clearly problematic? I've outlined my reasons on the talk page as you requested. Rgds,Jprw (talk)07:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current formulation was arrived at byconsensus and refers toreliable sources. In order to change it we would need to form a new consensus at article talk. --John (talk)08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John.This edit incorrectly changed humourous to humorous on a page with a{{Use British English}} tag present. I notice it didn't change the two instances of "humour" so I guess this is just something you missed in regex or something? Either way, I've corrected it for this page anyways. Cheers,Nikthestoned09:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your communication and for caring about spelling. However, you have fallen for a common error; "humourous" is not correct in any dialect of English. Although "humour" is correct in British English, we have "humorous" and "humorist" etc. I'll change it back. Once again I appreciate your attention to detail. --John (talk)13:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually consider this and subsequently consulted my (albeit, pretty old) OED and found it to be in both forms... I shall concede, however, given the results shown in various on-line dictionaries that you are correct in this matter; apologies for the hassle!Nikthestoned09:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, did you dothis with a script? Most of those dates were populated by reflinks and other automated tools and I'd like to perform this conversion myself if automated. Thanks again,Nikthestoned09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Never mind, nabbed it from your skin! 11:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great script, enjoy using it. Nice to meet you and let me know if I can ever be of any help to you. --John (talk)15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[15] Either I explode (which I'm sure would be the preferred option for some) or I have to trust in that rarest of commodities, common sense. I know how GAN works, but I'm less sure how GAR works. Geometry guy's tried to explain it to me a few times but I still don't get it. Maybe the right thing to do after all would have been to go on to FAC; at least then some politico wouldn't have been able to flex his muscles by arbitrarily delisting the article, apparently without knowing exactly why except for "she was a bad person".MalleusFatuorum02:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that was incredibly rude. It's a contentious topic and it was always vulnerable to this kind of politically motivated attack. --John (talk)09:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you both having trouble with this editorUser:Jprw? Because he/she is removing important details from the Clint Eastwood article and arrogantly seems to think they are right and seem to be looking down on the article as if its crap. Apparentlyhis highest grossing films and Dirty Harry films are not worthy of mentioning in the lead.♦Dr. Blofeld18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I was having trouble with him, yet. He seems very opinionated and perhaps not that collegial. We all have our bad moments. It's interesting though if this is a pattern of behaviour across several articles; I had assumed he was a Thatcher acolyte and wanted our article to reflect his views. Ironically just before that I was getting stick from someone else who said the article was too positive towards her. You can't please everyone I suppose. Maybe worth keeping an eye on though. --John (talk)18:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All too often here it seems like you can't please anyone, but I noticed that Clint Eastwood spat earlier, and I think Dr. Blofeld is right to be concerned.MalleusFatuorum19:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedRobert Fripp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHeroes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, as you blockedMddkpp can you have a look atOranjblud who looks like a sock of this user by application of theduck test on their editing pattern. Railway related articles & Hull, use of short months etc.Keith D (talk)13:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking. --John (talk)17:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I'm Sorry about the trouble with my latest edit to the Wikipedia entry for the Nazca Lines. However, I am at a loss as to how the article I linked violates policy. It is not self promotion. I have a site that gives lots of information for free to educate people about primitive skills and history. The article in question (which I attempted to link at Wikipedia) gives rare information that speaks to the history of the lines, the research that has been done over the decades, possible meanings, and describes a full sized replica of the lines which was created with the kinds of tools that would have been used by the original creators of said lines. All in all, extremely valuable information for anyone wishing to understand the full significance of these extraordinary works of art. I have seen other links on Wikiipedia which are at actual businesses, etc. I would just like to understand how my linking to it is self promotion or clearly how it violates policy. I wish only to educate people about the nature of the lines. Have you visited the link? Thank you for your time. P.S. Forgive if this isn't the proper way to present this question to you. I've never done a Wikipedia edit before and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to communicate with you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byEarp1957 (talk •contribs)21:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I will have a look at your link and let you know my thoughts. --John (talk)00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and I agree the material is useful. I found it more useful to go with theoriginal than the reprint. --John (talk)10:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow! When I first asked them permission to put that article up years ago, they didn't have it up themselves! Didn't know they had put it up. Well, the important thing is that this great information is up for people to reference and learn from. Thanks. ~~earp~~— Precedingunsigned comment added byEarp1957 (talk •contribs)06:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, can you direct me to the article that specifies why flag icons are not permitted on the Lisbon article? The use of flag icons on twinning subjects seems to be common on larger city articles than this, and I can see this turning into the subject of future edit-wars on other articles, if I was to start dewikifying in a similar matter. I would appreciate some clarification and supporting proofs in order to justify this type of action.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk)17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. There was never any consensus to use flags this way in the first place; they were added willy-nilly and as you point out they have spread like a rash over many settlement articles.WP:MOSICON has long deprecated uses of flags which are purely decorative, and we had a relatively recentRfC which was pretty conclusive on the subject, so there should be no need for anybody to edit-war over this issue. Thanks for noticing my work; why not join me in removing these unencyclopedic decorations wherever they are being misused? --John (talk)18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedKamakura, Kanagawa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesHagi andUeda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from theGuild of Copy EditorsMarch 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation:We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late.Join us! Progress report:Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks:Special thanks toStfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators –Dianna (talk),Stfg (talk), andDank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name fromour mailing list.

[16] How could there possibly be any confusion in the mind of anyone with even a basic grasp of English? I'm completely ill-equipped to deal with that kind of crap without calling it crap. Or perhaps even fucking crap.MalleusFatuorum23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to write professionally for people with varying skills in reading, and I have to be honest enough to say that when more than one person makes a misreading like that, maybe the wording needs to be clarified. Any thoughts? I also think there is a good point being made there about the nickname; maybe there's a way to get both explanations in rather than just one. --John (talk)23:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts, addressing your points in order, are that nobody with any degree of English comprehension could mistake what is being said; perhaps those two were looking at an earlier version of the article?

As to your second point, there also seems to be some confusion. There's no doubt that the nickname was given to Thatcher by the Soviets, and that's adequately documented. If anyone wants to go further and argue that itstuck because of Thatcher's policies while she was in power then they have to provide reliable sources that say so, otherwise the chronology doesn't work.MalleusFatuorum23:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, I think we all have our areas andlevels of competency; on the second, I believe that such sources have arguably now been provided. I shall suggest a way forward in article talk. --John (talk)06:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I thought you might like a change and have a look atVictoria Silvstedt? As you will see at that link, a consensus for wording was agreed, however (as has been happening for a while), an IP editor will not accept the situation and continues a slow-war edit at the article. If you consider it appropriate, could the page please be protected for a while? Cheers.GFHandel ♬ 19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and I do not think it is a pressing case for semi-protection at present. The information that is being added is not especially defamatory and is sourced, even if I am inclined to agree with you that it needs a better source. I will keep an eye on how this develops and reserve the right to change my mind if things change there. Thank you for thinking of me. --John (talk)20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. I don't think that the information is particularly damaging either, and I was one of the editors who helped to word the text that a number of editors wish to see in the article. The trouble is that there is a single IP editor who simply removes the text every time it is inserted into the article.GFHandel ♬ 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected after all. If a strong consensus is demonstrable in talk it should be less of a problem to defend that version against attrition. It may be though that there is still a discussion to be had. We'll see. --John (talk)20:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles:The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews:Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed:Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

Hi John,

I have now responded to the previous constructive input you added on the Ramones talk page.

Thanks again for your good intent.

Best wishes,Socheid (talk)21:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Socheid. It is good to hear from you. I am sorry to see you are at a reduced level of participation. WP:3RR is one not to mess with. I will always be here for you as and when you resume editing. --John (talk)01:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your editchanging "cruse" to "cruise", the original spelling was correct. I know"Cruse" isn't the most common word. Just wanted to give you a heads up.--Bkwillwm (talk)12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my error and for your courtesy in letting me know. --John (talk)12:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the iTunes link. There is no policy against linking to iTunes and from what I can tell this is the only place with a complete listing of her songs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No,WP:ELNO as well as common sense dictate that links like this should not be used on Wikipedia. Sorry. --John (talk)17:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, #5 in the list of links to avoid.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Same for Amazon. External links should only be used in general when they give something to the article that it would need if it was a good article. Sorry again. --John (talk)17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That page isn't directly selling the music. You have to actually open up the iTunes program in order to buy any of the songs. If there were another page that provided a complete listing of her music I would use it, but that just isn't the case here. I have looked for any other page that would list all her music, but this is the best I could find.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's really true and there is no other reliable non-commercial source which lists all her music then I would say that the information does not belong on Wikipedia. --John (talk)17:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentionedhere. It pertains to the harassment from another user I mentioned before.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courtesy in informing me. --John (talk)20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. I wondered whythis edit was considered appropriate when it unlinked a number of works, includingThe Adelphi which I don't believe are common terms, particularly to a global audience. Could you let me know why you did this so I can understand what you're trying to do please? Thanks.The Rambling Man (talk)20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. PerWP:OVERLINK we definitely do not need multiple links to the same target; one or two will suffice. Thanks for taking an interest in my work. --John (talk)20:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but wrong, because it's a sortable table so every instance of a linkable item should be linked.The Rambling Man (talk)20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --John (talk)20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because as soon as a sortable table is sorted by any column other than the default, the linked item won't necessarily appear first. Common practice in sortable tables is to link every linkable item every time.The Rambling Man (talk)20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, you quoted OVERLINK, where it says "if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes"... I'd appreciate it if you could undo any such edits in any sortable tables you may have made. Cheers.The Rambling Man (talk)20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can explain why having the same link repeated over 100 times is "helpful for readers", having thoroughly read and digested the spirit of OVERLINK. Alternatively showing a recent central consensus for this style of overlinking would also suffice. --John (talk)20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I'll undo your edit on this featured list as it goes against the spirit of OVERLINK's ability to allow us to be helpful to readers. Your edit here is not helpful to readers who may have sorted things differently or may be half way down a long list and need to link to a particular article. A pity someone of your experience is showing such an attitude to helping our readers. Thanks for your interest in my comments.The Rambling Man (talk)20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit stupid, to be honest. I would be interested to see your considered response to my serious questions once you have got over your fit ofamour-propre, in article talk though rather than here. Until then, adios. --John (talk)20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid to you, but not to the entireWP:FLC community who routinely do this. Of course, your opinion is important, but I've responded to your "article talk" addition, so let's head there duderino. Until then, adios.The Rambling Man (talk)20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about the forthcoming 2012 London Mayoral Election and noticed that the article mentioned the independent candidate being a former senior civil servant and linked to an article about them. I clicked the link and was somewhat surprised to find a rather long and comprehensive article aboutSiobhan Benita which reads more like a CV than a Wikipedia article. I'm not really sure what the appropriate thing to do now would be as my involvement with Wikipedia is pretty much restricted to fixing typos and adding references so this is a bit out of my depth- hence this message.

The history page for the article shows that it was created on 12th March 2012 by an editor called VincentBenita and that the same user has contributed a large number of edits to it. I suspect that there are a number of issues with the article- it strikes me as an attempt by a would-be politician to use Wikipedia as an electioneering tool, I would question the inclusion of some of the external links such as "Follow Siobhan Benita's (sic) on Twitter", there's a long list of news reports about coverage of her election campaign which doesn't really seem to serve any great purpose than raise awareness of her campaign and I have a strong suspicion that some of the editors who have worked on the page are less than impartial about the subject.

I'm hoping that you might take a look at it yourself and decide whether its current content is appropriate for Wikipedia and/or what needs to be changed/done to bring it into line. I apologise sincerely for dropping this on you but I'm way out of my depth and feel it deserves the attention of someone with more knowledge of the way Wikipedia operates as well as more influence within the organisation. I have no issue with Ms Benita and indeed had never heard of her until I read the article about the 2012 London Mayoral Election, however it concerns me that something that looks- at least to me- like electioneering should try to be passed off as an encyclopaedia article. I would appreciate your opinion and advice on what to do next.

Thank you.IrishPete02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a hack at it and left a COI warning on the article creator's talk page. Thanks for letting me know and tell me if you think it needs more than this. --John (talk)05:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that's a lot better, much more encyclopaedic and less like a promotional piece.IrishPete10:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the edit history of this article. The page for the band formed by formerThe Verve band members in 2009 (plenty of online source to back this up) has been hijacked over the past month or 2 by an uknown New York band to promote themselves, who are pretending to have formed in 2006 to try and justify it - but there are no sources for them before 2011 anyway and are obviously not notable in any way.Ta.Edit - Should also note that this NY band have also hacked into the bands Twitter account (as has been mentioned on the Verve members bands Facebook).

92.5.49.128 (talk)17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and warned. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk)19:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You actually reverted the wrong edit! :) You just reverted it to the spam link (which I have realised I accidently kept in the article). I reverted the article back earlier today to what it should be, but am sure it will be changed again over night from a NY area IP address. If you go through the edit history you will see there has been a protracted edit war of people reverting the vandals who are replacing the article with spam for their own act - any chance of protecting the page?

92.5.36.155 (talk)21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this in some detail, I think that possibly neither band really passesWP:N. I have moved the material on the US band toThe Black Ships (US band) meantime, but I have also put a {{notability}} tag onto both articles. If more third-party sources cannot be found for both in the next week or so I intend to nominate both fordeletion discussions. --John (talk)10:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have restored multiple references. If you check the edit history of the user who has edited today, you'll see they have repeatedly removed such links from the article and changed links to their band. They have hacked into and stolen the bands twitter page, so it seems like this will go on for some time unless the page is protected.92.5.44.3 (talk)14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I saw. I have no opinion on any alleged hacking of other pages. We can't use twitter and other social media here anyway. Thanks for restoring those refs. --John (talk)14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - if you check out this linkhttp://friendswelove.com/blog/the-black-ships/ The Verve are listed as one of their influences. So they've nicked the band name, and are now systematically trying to remove the original band from online existance! Crazy, but they're clearly trying to target Verve fans in this campaign of theirs.92.5.44.3 (talk)14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're still at it. There are 2 IPs involved, both of which should be blocked. Would appreceite it if you would revert the last edit and hopefully protect the page? I realise that will stop me from editing further, but it really needs it.

92.5.44.3 (talk)14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted and semi-protected. --John (talk)14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They've now logged into their vandalism only account and have continued editing using that - what a nightmare! And they're now accusing you of being a vandal! Just been investigating their edit patterns, and originally they set about just replacing the links to their own band pages, and then eventually changed the whole article - very sneaky.

92.5.44.3 (talk)14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am willing tobelieve they have good intentions and I have advised them what to do for the best. I would advise not using the termvandalism to describe this situation as I am sure they are just trying to improve our coverage same as you and me. --John (talk)15:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clear try and see the good in everyone then! :) I fail to see the good in anyone trying to steal a bands online presence!92.5.44.3 (talk)16:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 days and nothing has been added toThe Black Ships (US band) to justify it being there. They are un-notable (as is the article on their album) and have been involved in a campaign of hijacking another more notables artists web presence (who will have a studio album out this year, major press to go along with it). Surely it needs to be nominated for deletion now?92.5.51.89 (talk)11:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree and have nominated it for deletion via theproposed deletion route. --John (talk)11:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• September 11 attacks (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• MONGO (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Hello John. I took a look at this report you made at AE, since it is now the oldest one on the board. Do I understand that you are requesting a sanction of MONGO just for the edit summary inthis edit?: "revert...he said she said...I say this is wrong article to be agenda pushing...by well established CT POV pusher." You also mention edit warring. It is not clear how you can see him as being in an edit war here, since that is his only edit of theSeptember 11 attacks article in the month of March. Is it possible that your concern is based on more than just this one edit, but on an overall pattern? Have you expressed your concern about this in more detail anywhere else? A single diff seems thin to justify an indefinite topic ban from 9/11, unless it's a really terrible diff.

MONGO had a checkered history in the past, but his last block was in 2008 (i.e. four years ago). It seems like he remains on an 'indefinite civility restriction' perWP:ARB911. I am not sure if you were thinking of that when you mentioned his edit summary. One of the relevant ANI threads from 2008 ishere.

It is possible that your AE filing was intended to open a general review by admins of the actions of several editors on 9/11. That kind of request may lead to a quirky outcome unless at least one admin is willing to perform a very thorough study. Admins at AE are not famous for their long attention spans. A more complete request from you would have helped to direct things. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I will try to finalise this request in the next 24 hours, if you do not feel that the edit summary on its own would be worthy of sanctions on an editor who is on civility parole and has been persistently problematic over time in this area. --John (talk)10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the request page, thank you for your attention. --John (talk)06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's Silvstedt's claim of earning millions a year only fluffs the article, does not contribute to the actual facts, and should be removed.71.183.42.144 (talk)13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at this later today. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --John (talk)15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste too much of your time on this John. This is (no doubt) the same POV anonymous editor whose persistent warring prompted adiscussion that resulted in a consensus wording in the article. I'm quite confident that as soon as yourprotection of the page expires (in three days), the same boring cycle of vandalism will resume. By the way, the consensus wording (established by at least four editors) begins: "According to the Finnish broadsheet newspaper ...", so WP is reporting the text of what is considered a reliable source,and warning our readers that the information is "according to". Until further sources emerge, there really is no need for the (anticipated) resumption in edit-warring hostilities for which this IP has demonstrated a propensity.GFHandel ♬ 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend going with the talk page consensus then. --John (talk)22:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I predict many sleepers editing this article in the future.Fasttimes68 (talk)23:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on it, don't worry. --John (talk)23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100,000? Well, that's not bad, I guess. ;-) Congrats!bd2412T21:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the kind thoughts. --John (talk)21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive Greetings from theGuild of Copy EditorsMarch 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out toLfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be foundhere. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The{{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators –Dianna(Talk),Stfg (Talk), andDank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name fromour mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk)22:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Snowlocust (talk)22:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. --John (talk)23:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedThe Black Ships (US band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAlternative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution –Survey Invite Hello John. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please clickHERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associatedresearch page.01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. We're having tremendous trouble atList of the verified oldest people. Could the page be protected for a while (perhaps also for edits by non-autoconfirmed editors, or some such)? I'm not sure what types of protection there are, but vandalising edits are coming thick and fast from both IP accounts and a recently-created account.

As an aside, would you prefer I didn't ask you directly for this sort of help? I know you are always willing to help, but is there a different mechanism you would prefer I use? E.g. should I be placing a tag on the affected article's talk page requesting help from a pool of available admins? If so, what is the best approach?

Anyhow, as always, thanks for your assistance.GFHandel ♬ 21:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If I'm ever too busy to help I will say so and/or pass on your request to another admin or a board. In this instance I semi-protected two weeks and indef-blocked a vandalism-only user. --John (talk)22:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I know it's hardly my place to be lecturing on temperance, but would you reconsider "incompetent and calculated to raise drama" in your latest post to ANI? --Anthonyhcole (talk)08:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of is is perfect and your post here was a model of how to do it, as Courcelles' block was a model of how not to do it. We all have things we feel strongly about when editing and sometimes we express ourselves in ways that others find hurtful. I believe there is a middle line between California prissiness and the language of the betting shop. Thank you for your considered and honest responses at your talk and at AN/I. --John (talk)10:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I have a lot of respect for you, but I'm at a loss why you think it'sa failing of Courcelles that he didn'ttemplate Malleus when he blocked him.28bytes (talk)12:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was only a part of it. Courcelles should know better that a one-sided block like this would not lead to anything good. I am more concerned that the block was punitive and aimed at an editor with whom he had been in conflict, and that no understanding was shown about how inappropriate the block was, even after several editors queried it. Instead, Courcelles accused Steve of wheel warring for undoing the block (which it very clearly was not) then went off-line. If you're going to make a controversial block (or unblock) you should be prepared to account for what you did and answer reasonable questions about it. --John (talk)12:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of that (and Istrongly agree with your point that accusing Steve of wheel-warring misinterprets the blocking policy) but I remain baffled by the complaint that he wasn't templated. I wouldn't have inquired about this at all except that I've seen it brought upby another editor as well. Anyway, it saddens me that we've lost one admin already over this lame edit war and we very well may lose another.28bytes (talk)13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should notify you that your !vote has been struck out. If this is seen as canvassing, and I am trying to phrase this as neutrally as possibly, I will self-revert.--GilderienTalk|Contribs15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be seen as canvassing? Ideally the editor striking it out would have informed me as a courtesy. It so happens that I already noticed. Being an Arb with a recall criterion that elastic is getting awfully close to not having a recall procedure at all, but I am fine with whatever happens happening. In the end the outcome is clearly up to Courcelles' conscience, and that remains an unknown quantity. --John (talk)15:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it could be seen as canvassing because I already certified, and it could be construed as an attempt to bring a supporter of the recall back into the dispute, which is not what I intended.--GilderienTalk|Contribs12:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Canvassing would only be if you contacted multiple people to ask them to participate. Letting one person know in a neutral way could never be canvassing, in my opinion. --John (talk)12:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA - and for your congratulations. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me.Yngvadottir (talk)15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I hope you enjoy the tools. --John (talk)15:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Iam5.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ТимофейЛееСуда.21:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you may want to take a look at this exchange[17] --The Red Pen of Doom12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, looks like somebody is annoyed. I won't block for that, but somebody else may. --John (talk)15:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see The Rambling Man has given him an early bath. Nice work. Thanks for letting me know, TRPOD. --John (talk)15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I went toAlvin Chea to fix a little issue in the "External links" section, but was surprised to see the state of the article. A whole lot of information was added today (of which I removed an inappropriate "Little Known Facts" section). It looks like the article is being written by a fan or agent. I'm curious to see how much (if any) you would prune. As always, thanks in advance. Cheers.GFHandel ♬ 06:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick hack; it probably needs more. --John (talk)10:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation from theGuild of Copy Editors TheGuild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in theirMay 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators:Dank,Diannaa, andStfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name fromour mailing list.EdwardsBot (talk)18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re your edit[18]

Are you certain that you want to be the editor who restored content so blatantly in violation of POLICYWP:NOTSOAP"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, ora vehicle for propaganda,advertising and showcasing.This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, anduser pages." because there are some people attempting to justify the content through a selective reading of the GUIDELINEWP:UP#PROMO might not specifically apply because of a "connection to Wikipedia"? --The Red Pen of Doom00:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we disagree over the interpretation of this policy. I am sure a solution will be found. My impression is that most participants in the discussion so far disagreed with you. I don't think it is worth getting upset over. --John (talk)12:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topicWP:ANI#Rinpoche Back Via Proxy. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk)17:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

--Shirt58 (talk)12:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look.--John (talk)12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, it was very interesting. --John (talk)17:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you willingly chastised me about PA's, I request that you inform the other party about the inflammatory effect of making unfounded accusations of Wikihounding.
Best WishesAnkh.Morpork12:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "chastise" you, Iwarned you that continuing to flout our rules about personal attacks would get you blocked. Which other party do you mean, and what do you see as the essential problem between you? --John (talk)12:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was inappropriately reacting to asection titled "Following me around?" which certainly was not the case. I primarily edit I-P topics and it was sheer coincidence that our paths converged.
Best WishesAnkh.Morpork12:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief glance I see two other people sparring with you there. Would you like me to message them both? If you would, could you let me know what exactly the problem is with their behaviour(s)? I saw your PA, that's easy enough to spot. I know that (almost) every PA has an antecedent. Would the antecedent in this case be these two editors asking you these questions on your talk page? --John (talk)18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, one other editor, and even that is questionable as they seem to operate like conjoined twins, when it comes to impeaching my editorial probity. I am sufficiently conciliated by your statement that "almost every PA has an antecedent", as I certainly feel that I was provoked in this instance by a distinct lack of good faith, and I do not request any further action. Thank you for not telling me to shut up and stop whining.
Best WishesAnkh.Morpork18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome; I know all too well after six years and 111,000 edits here how tempers can rise. Please let me know if I can ever assist you in the future. --John (talk)19:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles:The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews:Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed:The Land on commemorating World War I

Hi John. I've added a bit of additional background on the reasons I believe the page move is justified. Would a direct message from the article's subject also have any effect on your opinion? I could have him contact you. Barring that, I could suggest he do an OTRS, but I'd prefer to get consensus on the talk page instead. Thanks!Jokestress (talk)17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'd be honoured to hear direct from him as I am a great fan, but no, it wouldn't really affect my opinion on how this article should be named. --John (talk)17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, I'll stick to providing other requested materials that might affect your opinion. Thanks!Jokestress (talk)18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review the end ofthis thread, as I do not feel I am deserving of these personal attacks.
Best WishesAnkh.Morpork13:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to look at this later this evening UTC. --John (talk)17:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look and I see no overt personal attacks but some heated conversation on a delicate subject in which editors pointed out that you have previously declared having a point of view on the subject. The best I can do is keep an eye on things going forward, though I reserve the right to have a quiet word with one of the other participants in the discussion. I think you are taking the right line, by concentrating on the quality of sources and debating the subject rather than the editors. Sorry I couldn't be more help on this occasion. --John (talk)05:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection Ileft Dlv999 a polite message. Unfortunately to some extent by editing in these difficult areas one runs the risk of passions becoming heightened. It's all the more important to behave scrupulously and we can all have lapses. I think you are doing great there. I will continue to think about it. Thanks for contacting me. --John (talk)08:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged.
Best WishesAnkh.Morpork11:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, after you previously looked into a discussion regarding myself and Ankh, I respect your opinion and would value your opinion on Ank's comment in the last paragraph of this post.[23]Dlv999 (talk)14:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am inclined to agree that this is unhelpful. I have asked AnkhMorpork if he will refactor the comment. --John (talk)19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And he has now refactored. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. --John (talk)19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]