Can you look at this the talk page of the list of fastest motorcyles .Not sure who contact about dennis bratland. I think this guy is doing this because I spoke against him on the dodge tomahawk page and is now doing this. Or at least tell me who to contact sorry to post to you talk page I do not know how to just message someone.72bikers (talk)06:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at this. What is the issue? --John (talk)11:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)The issue is clear, its about who has the biggest, um, bike! -Roxy the dog™woof13:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or the fastest. What I mean is that I am not sure this editorial disagreement rises to the level of needing admin intervention. Does it? --John (talk)13:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for my opinion? Wow. My answer would be no, it is a content discussion among experienced eds. I also think that some OR is going on among them too. The problem is the article itself is always going to be a "he said she said" discussion by its very nature. -Roxy the dog™woof13:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on all counts. --John (talk)18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But should that be the basis of your administerial decision? ;) -Roxy the dog™woof19:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On this occasion my decision will probably be towatch and wait. --John (talk)19:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been resolved for now with some help. Sorry for not including more information as to problem. Just to briefly sum it up it was just that they were including a as tested track only motorcycle to a list of stock street motorcycles. And ignoring that facts I brought up to just go on and on about as if I took issue with how the test was performed and who tested it. I felt they were treating me this way because I spoke up against db on the dodge tomahawk page.72bikers (talk)21:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a good thing to do on someone's talk page? (Note I did not re-revert the changes and I began a discussion on the talk page...the article is a GA, by the way.Ealdgyth -Talk19:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that happened. I have left them a polite message asking them not to do that again. --John (talk)19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago this morning I started my Wikipedia account. 175,100 edits later I wish to place on record my gratitude for all the enjoyment I have had in editing here. Thanks to all who have made it so pleasurable. You know who you are. --John (talk)13:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "no consensus" is fair. I have to admit that the cleanup after found more useable material than I expected to find - still had to cut a huge chunk, but I was able to salvage about half the cut material to a new article, so that's not so bad, so probably for the best.Adam Cuerden^(talk)12:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and for the work you've done. That's a good result for the project. I hope you're feeling better.John (talk)17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my edit here, just putting "ce" and "detriv" as the reasons. I have no idea what they are. My edit read: "As before mentioned, Bowie knelt and recited the Lord's Prayer at the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert on 20 April 1992." My view, which I hold quite strongly, is that the fact that he did kneel and pray like that should most definitely get a mention in that section.Boscaswell (talk)13:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's trivia. Take it to article talk, please. --John (talk)14:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toL. Neil Smith may have broken thesyntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | nationality = American]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed it. --John (talk)22:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, how goes it? I wonder if you could intercede atLove (Beatles album) andSavoy Truffle, whereLiron54 is continually adding unsourced information and edit-warring. This despite my starting a discussion atTalk:Savoy Truffle and posting a message about it on their talk page. The user'sentire presence on Wikipedia seems to be dedicated to "correcting" details about the Beatles'Love remixes. I've nominated Savoy Truffle for GA, so therecent activity there is far from healthy, obviously. Thank you,JG66 (talk)02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them a message. Let me know if it continues. --John (talk)12:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, John. It would be nice to think that's the end of it.

Btw,that "warning" I left: not really my style (I picked up the habit from Dan56, in fact!) – but is it okay/acceptable that any old editor can dish those out, or is it an admin's prerogative?JG66 (talk)12:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, anyone can warn anyone. I think you did the right thing. --John (talk)00:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good to hear. Thanks again,JG66 (talk)05:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Thank you for your edits.I am a fact checker.Wiki has been a great resource.Regards

Lleddilecila (talk)06:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, I noticed you have made edits recently to the Walmart article. My name is Jenny and I’m one of Walmart’s official representatives on Wikipedia. I recently put forward a request for help on that article’sTalk page that an editor partially fulfilled. I’m wondering, would you be able to take a look at the remaining issues? To avoid any confusion, I have attached the remaining issues here. Please note that I also posted a request onWikiProject Companies Talk page. I’m hoping to fix, source and update existing content. Let me know if you have any questions on what I have proposed. I’m happy to answer. Thanks,JLD at Walmart (talk)17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note,User:JLD at Walmart. I see your proposals at the Walmart talk page and it seems reasonable to update the information on your company's article. You are doing the right thing to raise these requests in discussion rather than adding them directly to the article. I will have a look at them and see what we can do. --John (talk)19:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments about the quality of the prose atWikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Bristol. The articleBristol has since kindly been copy edited byUser:Corinne (and others) on behalf of theGOCE. Do you think this has resolved the issues or are there still outstanding problems? Do you think it is worth renominating atTFA requests or shall I just forget it?—Rod^talk20:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take another look. --John (talk)21:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I presume you meant 2016, not 2015, withthis edit... ;-) Cheers,Ian Rose (talk)00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. Thank you. --John (talk)07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK that ...every time weWP:AGF, somewhere in heaven anangel gets herwings.Martinevans123 (talk)13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that's very good. On the other hand AGF is not a suicide pact, and most damage is done by people thinking they are doing the right thing. --John (talk)18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phew... what a relief that you've not been hacked by some two-litres-of-whiskey-a-session guy,after all.Martinevans123 (talk)19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re your revert. As you are aware, I have started a discussion at WP level. FYI, MOSFLAG already statesIn lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. My edit was merely to clarify that. Your particpation at the discussion is requested.Mjroots (talk)20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up your ping with this message. I think you are right that the lists or tables clause already cover instances like this. All the more reason that there is no need toadd this as an exception to the MoS. I will give my opinion at the discussion before I go to bed tonight. --John (talk)20:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 85.130.221.249 who vandalizes theSting page is back.Rodericksilly (talk)21:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned. I would be quite happy to block if it continues. --John (talk)21:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. We talkedhere before about my suggested updates to theWalmart article, and you said you would look at them to see what could be done. Please let me know if you have any questions on any of the changes I've suggested. I think they're fairly straightforward and uncontroversial, but I'm happy to discuss anything you might see as an issue. Thanks,JLD at Walmart (talk)22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. --John (talk)07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)05:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you were are a strong candidate and I am sure you will do fine with the tools. Having said that, if there is ever anything you need advice or support over, please don't hesitate to ask. --John (talk)12:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a consistently disruptive IP user on this page 217.149.252.162. Please could you give him a warning because it's getting quite repetitive now.Rodericksilly (talk)17:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. I can see the IP's point. This might be a case for compromise. Have you tried a talk page discussion? --John (talk)19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this section would benefit from cleaning up, which I'm now doing. However, specific criticisms of Collins by other prominent artists, such as in song lyrics, does seem relevant to the wider issue of Collins' particularly negative profile. It would be nice if they would discuss instead of just arbitrarily removing.Rodericksilly (talk)19:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree on all counts. Stuff like this is better sourced to a book or other "serious" source; it isn't good enough to source it from song lyrics etc. Good work on the cleanup. --John (talk)19:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up this whole section and removed a lot of superfluous or repetitive comments while maintaining the essence of the criticism of him and his work. I can't see any problem with the reliability of the source for the lyrics of thePaul Heaton song, therefore I believe it should remain and is relevant to negative perceptions of him by other artists.Rodericksilly (talk)21:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of what you have done. For the rest I will see you in article talk. Thanks for raising this with me here. --John (talk)23:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Admin, would you care to look atthis edit? Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk)19:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charming indeed. I gave them aspecial barnstar. --John (talk)19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thank you for the greeting and the information. I've been a long time reader and slowly working my way into editing, so all of the information you provided is very welcome.

On another note, I just undid some vandalism on the Josiah Willard Gibbs featured article. Upon looking at the address that made the edit (50.206.252.26) it seems to have a long history of vandalism. I tried to report this on the block page, but it didn't seem to post successfully. Perhaps you could tell me what I did wrong, or look into the problem yourself?

Again, thanks for the help!

Hoff0839 (talk)20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I am watching them. --John (talk)20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youHoff0839 (talk)20:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You restored the incorrect, unsourced version here[1] Please look at talk.Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Right place I think. I'm asking you to look at the correctness of your edit and to consider reversing it, cause you never posted on the talk page and it looks like you are making an admin decision in a content dispute.Legacypac (talk)21:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. Does it? --John (talk)21:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again John! If possible, perhaps you could help me with a few questions related to the English language. Please just leave it unanswered, if you don't care or have no time etc. I already have a great deal to thank you for. So please just ignore my questions if you for instance think that I should have known the answers - or for any other reason what so ever. But I ask the questions after having searched my old "English Grammar" school-book as well as elsewhere. My troubles are the else rather simple wordswhile / whilest orwhilst (Lately have I also got confused over the spelling) and similaramong / amongst (if the latter even is correctly spelled). If you perhaps could give me a brief explenation of how and when one shall use the "+st form", so to speak, then you would help me a lot. I don't like to not understand things which else is of interest to me. But cheers in any case !Boeing720 (talk)00:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. I regard the -st forms (it's "whilst" by the way) as old-fashioned and always usewhile andamong. I note thatwhile is one of the most over-used words on Wikipedia. If any of my TPS can give a more erudite answer, please chip in. And don't even get me started onunbeknownst! --John (talk)00:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "The Helium Insufficiency" episode ofThe Big Bang Theory:

Somewhat inevitably,Mexican standoff had to be protected fromwhimsically archaic Sheldon Cooper fans. --Hillbillyholiday^talk01:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what Wikipedians can find to disagree over. Remind me to tell you about the article with no e's in it some time. It's a good story. --John (talk)01:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True dat. Would that article beGadsby perchance? --Hillbillyholiday^talk

That was indeed it, and well done for digging that out. I haven't thought of User:John J. Bulten in a while. Looks like he has moved on from the project. --John (talk)08:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John and others! I will not use "whilst" in the future (and I never had - including "whilest"). And yes, it´s indeed interesting what people can disagree about. I never really was involved my self, but theDanish (pastry) orDanish pastry discussion (around a year ago), is the worst or best example which I have read.Boeing720 (talk)15:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, VvG is consistently the nr 1 or 2 most popular visual arts page by reader views, and myself and Modernist are trying to organise a FAC push. Iridescent sort of recommended that I pull in the best copyeditors the site has, so here I am, cap in hand. Have seen over the years what you are capable of and know the level of skill, asking for help. Have also asked Eric and Ling. Wishlisting and best,Ceoil (talk)11:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am really flattered that you ask me and I will do what I can to help you. --John (talk)11:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressed with the manner in which you have tended to the page. Concise, elegant, and tight writing is very pleasing, though not something I am capable of, I learned a long time ago. Thank you *very* much for all your work. Your comments on talk are well made and I have begun to address, though am still kicking about ideas; hope you will continue to engage.Ceoil (talk)04:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a great pleasure. Thank you for asking me to help. --John (talk)10:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to standardize the citation format... We might want to discuss... Lingzhi ♦ (talk)12:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see and applaud the work you are doing. I think I will leave you to it; you look like you know what you are doing. --John (talk)12:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I meant, when you are deleting or adding quotes. But the system for refs hasn't been agreed on .. the books look MLA-sh, inconsistently, and the web cites are even more inconsistent... but I have to run now until tomorrow..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've helped me before so I wondered if you might again. Earlier this month I came acrossAnn Cryer whose article appears to have been the victim of a hoax, trivial nonsense added to it apparently sourced to the local paper. It seems to have gone on for years. I removed it earlier this month and it has been reverted by an IP who has inserted it previously. Two views on the talk page are in favour of its removal. Do you think its worth protecting it? I rarely get involved with BLPs but I don't think a hoax should be constantly repeated here.J3Mrs (talk)12:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.J3Mrs (talk)12:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What a piece of nonsense. Let me know if you need any other help. --John (talk)13:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreetingsJohn! Can you have a look at this:User talk:Stealthepiscopalian#WP:EDITWAR at Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica? The user seems to be edit warring atSaints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, introducing unreliably sourced material to the article. Brevity is the soul of wit, so in order to avoid repetition, I presented the case to the user directly, and tried to engage him in conversation. The response wasn't too positive unfortunately.

Should you have any question, I'd be happy to explain things in more detail! Thanks and cheers!Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)17:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them and will block if there is any repetition. Let me know if you need any other help. --John (talk)18:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksJohn. It didn't take that long before some mysterious IP popped up and restored the disputed material[2]. Seems that the IP has the total of two edits during his editing career[3], both focusing on the same scope of articles. Such a weird coincidence, isn't it? :-DJayaguru-Shishya (talk)19:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...careful with that block button, you John.Martinevans123 (talk)19:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, too late. I blocked for socking; it seemsblindingly obvious that this is the same user. --John (talk)19:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaguru-Shishya, you also need to be careful about 3RR there. --John (talk)20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your noticeJohn, I am aware of that. Sometimes in many a low-traffic article I find it a bit of a grey area when one single editor is on the warpath against multiple other ones. In this case it'd mean three, and I considered it reasonable to restore the consensus version since it might take months for some other user to lay his eyes on the matter.Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)17:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a situation like this sometimes a slow revert is better than a quick one. No worries, I think it is all taken care of now. --John (talk)19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if i was incorrect, but isn'tTranent in the Edinburgh Metropolitan area, its just you removed my edit, again if I'm inaccurate, i apologise :) And wasn't my eating & drinking section accurate? (Anonymous (talk)21:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Tranent is inEast Lothian. The eating and drinking section needs to be backed up with sources or it looks like promotion. --John (talk)21:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand about the eating and drinking section, but a I'm certain that even though Tranent is inEast Lothian it is still a town in the metropolitan area of Edinburgh^[1]— Precedingunsigned comment added byIDKIWL435495 (talk •contribs)

We would need a source for that. Wikipedia is not a source. --John (talk)22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'll figure out where the person who edited that page got the information from.— Precedingunsigned comment added byIDKIWL435495 (talk •contribs)

Ok, if you can find a valid source (not Wikipedia) then it is fine to add that to the article. --John (talk)22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could help me with something, I'm creating a new school page and i want to use the schools badge from the schools website, would this count as copyright if i added it.— Precedingunsigned comment added byIDKIWL435495 (talk •contribs)—Precedingundated comment added17:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you are thinking aboutSanderson's Wynd Primary School, that probably wouldn't be considerednotable by our standards. So basically, don't bother would be my advice. --John (talk)18:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i thought that would be okay, seeing that there was enough information, sorry I'm new to creating pages, i normally just stick to editing small things on other pages— Precedingunsigned comment added byIDKIWL435495 (talk •contribs)—Precedingundated comment added19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John.!I agree with you about the importance of Wikipedia, I believe it is the great opportunity for “lost” information to surface in the story. I want to contribute to Wikipedia dominance in the world encyclopedia, for that I donate funds to Wikipedia, because there is a cost to keep it going and growing. Sometimes I have or find information in old books, or original sources etc. now in the internet, they give solid accuracy in a story considered important. For that I am an occasional editor user. I make mistakes, I am not Wikipedia savvy, for 30 years living in South Texas 2 miles from the US Mexico border, everyone here speaks Spanish, lost my New York accent, maybe I got a Mexican one with such narrative flaws. Can you please help me John? Since you reversed my contribution on Chiapas, Danielle Mitterrand and Oliver Stone. I do want Wikipedia to have that info. It is the most important event in Chiapas history, for 2 years this attracted world media interest. Saving a genocide in Chiapas when the Mexican army, had surrounded the Zapatistas, with an announced by Mexican President Zedillo order to find capture or kill Daniele Mitterrand opposed to this it is her most important live achievement, it is fair she get credit for that. No matter that Oliver Stone as he openly stated, his real intention, to visit the Zapatista Sub Commander Marcos in La Realidad Chiapas in the Mexican Lacandon Jungle, was to get the story rights for a film about Marcos and the Zapatistas, Mr. Stone opposed to the massacre and the media attention his visit attracted was crucial. It is important to have this in his story. Can you please help me? I be grateful. --Trinity Abbey (talk)00:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Make a simple statement atTalk:Oliver Stone, provide your references and I will help you to get it into shape for the article. --John (talk)13:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, It is kind of you, I appreciate that.!

--Trinity Abbey (talk)00:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just place my statement atTalk:Oliver Stone, with references as you instructed me John. I be very happy and grateful to see it in shape and ready.! Thanks.! --Trinity Abbey (talk)00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have formatted your post and made some suggestions. --John (talk)20:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HiJohn on March 5, I posted at theTalk:Oliver Stone, the Proposed addition (rephrased) fo The Zapatista Crisis as you requested. No corrections, or questions have followed, I suppose it is all right if I post it on the Oliver Stone wikipedia page.I appreciate all your tutorial help to achieve this. It has been a good experience, Thank you --Trinity Abbey (talk)08:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support that. I think it still needs work. --John (talk)11:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HiJohn I was in the idea, I was doing great.! je je je, you tell me what is to do, please, thank you, --Trinity Abbey (talk)02:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at article talk. Your proposal is too long, badly written, poorly sourced and breaches NPOV. --John (talk)07:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me understand how to create pages i really appreciate your help! So thanks ever so muchIDKIWL435495 (talk)21:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. --John (talk)22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did the ping on talk Vincent work? Lingzhi ♦ (talk)00:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and ps (read above first) you're not supposed to change the engvar on a direcct quote. AmerEng is OK for use in BritEng articles if the AmerEng is within a direct quote. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)05:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It looks horrible like that. I certainly don't think we should be adding more quotes. --John (talk)07:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was hoping for your input on talk:Vincent regarding the mass changes bgwhite has already made and is trying to push through Lingzhi ♦ (talk)08:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw and looked but do not understand what the issue is. I am a writer and copy-editor, not a coding guru. Can you explain what the issues are in simple language? --John (talk)08:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been using a cell phone for days now and thus am unable to maneuver around the page and see every detail. He certainly has added p for page to almost all references. Ceoil and I had agreed in previous threads to eschew that format. Bgwhite is strongly suggesting we dump the current citation format wholesale and use cite book templates etc. Again we had previously explicitly agreed not to do that. There may be other changes I was unable to see but in short he unilaterally dumped all our previous discussions and needlessly assumed a personal attack when I disagreed. Is that a good enough explanation? Lingzhi ♦ (talk)08:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What doesUser:Ceoil think? --John (talk)09:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • he hasn't been onwiki since the 29th Lingzhi ♦ (talk)10:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree withLingzhi an agreement was made...Modernist (talk)12:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • also agreeCeoil (talk)13:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose the best place to express all this agreement would probably beTalk:Vincent van Gogh. Just search for the word "lazy"... Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)14:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theMalaysia Airlines Flight 370 page,your edit caused acite error(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ReferenceBot. I think I've fixed it. --John (talk)00:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings John! Could you have a look at this:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica? It seems that a new editor has popped up[4], and that his only edits during his entire editing history (10 pieces) deal with the very deletion process ofSaints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica.[5] A possible sock-puppet, perhaps?Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)19:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised. --John (talk)19:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, this is getting rather hilarious. I think userChris troutman put it well in his response:[6]

D1s0b3y, You can't start a paragraph by saying you"just signed up about an hour ago" and then tell us what you think based on your"experience on Wikipedia". Independent and reliable sources have been necessary to make claims of notability for years as I've told aspiring editors like you over atWP:AFC.

Could you please run a check on this user? Sorry, I've never ran into SPI case before. Thanks!Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)21:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too. I am not a checkuser and would need to open a SPI just like you would. Sorry. --John (talk)21:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, indeed... Well, just a new procedure for me to learn! Thanks stillJayaguru-Shishya (talk)21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the user is a mere single-purpose account, but user Stealthepiscopalian got indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting.[7] Cheers!Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)09:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry again if I massively misunderstood you. Hope we'll be able to work together again in the future. Good work on Vincent BTW. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)05:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, no harm done. Is there any progress at the article? I haven't looked in a while. --John (talk)07:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's good to hear... No progress. I askedCeoil to !vote. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)07:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shame. What can we do meantime? --John (talk)20:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Copy editing is always OK. If you're up for more, you could read sources and either add content or verify existing text. The process of moving from ref tags to templates is also only 95% completed. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)01:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok. --John (talk)02:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←)I am acutely aware of my absence from this page but have not have had a breakthrough in encapsulating his breakthrough as a household name. The sources we might want to use are scattered, so far as I have found.Ceoil (talk)23:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess theoretically there's no such thing as a leader involved, but I very much defer all opinions to yours on this article. I am in no way a visual arts guy (though I deeply appreciate VvG's work). So while you are engaged in sifting this key topic, the !vote that has come up is missing input from the one whom I at least consider to be the key guy. I dunno if others feel the same or similar. But OTOH, to gain a sense of perspective, if work on Vincent sits still for a couple weeks, western civilization probably will not collapse (unless Trump is elected POTUS in the interim...) Lingzhi ♦ (talk)23:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the GOP has built is base enough.Ceoil (talk)23:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The John award of balance and measure
		For consistently being right and providing a rock in often stormy seas. And because of all the other things.Ceoil (talk)11:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]	File:Sonic1991b.jpg

Wow, thanks a lot. That's way too generous. --John (talk)18:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I hope you are well. In the past you very kindly provided some copy-editing to this article. It has evolved since then, and I was wondering whether you might have time to take another look for this Peer Review. If you don't have time, no worries at all. Thank you very much!Moisejp (talk)17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have a look. Thank you for asking me! --John (talk)18:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You kindly protected the article but the IP is back adding rubbish as soon as the protection expired. Anything else you can do?J3Mrs (talk)12:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected again. Let me know if this nonsense continues. --John (talk)18:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will.J3Mrs (talk)22:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a year. Could you please unblockuser:TopherKRock? Thanks.— Precedingunsigned comment added by134.240.241.240 (talk)17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest asking@Jpgordon: by pinging them at your logged-in user talk, or else posting an unblock request there. I can help you with that if you like. I also suggest not continuing to edit while logged out as this may be seen as block evasion. Good luck. --John (talk)21:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byClivel 0 (talk •contribs)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look, John. I regret introducing you to this nonsense. --Hillbillyholiday^talk10:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All in a day's work. --John (talk)10:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that thePope is Jewish?Martinevans123 (talk)12:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty. Nothing would surprise me. These areas are a hotbed of hatred on both sides. All we can do is fairly and conservatively reflect what the best-quality sources say. --John (talk)12:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatively??! OMG, you're just part of the evil anti-JewishTory-Party-Google Conspiracy!Martinevans123 (talk)12:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good example of what I mean. --John (talk)12:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, would you evenrecognise one? --Hillbillyholiday^talk

Lol! Now I know why my Star of David and the Jewish flag I draped over the old bridge inLiswerry proved so unpopular. "Mr Black123, 70 fromNewport, said: "The community is very small. There’s myself,Abraham Davidson, two others in their 90s and a couple inBlackwood."Martinevans123 (talk)12:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the wonderful "celebrity gossip" sourceDaily Mail appears - and the people using it do not even recognize what it states as fact - but want to use the sensational headlines rather than stick to conservative use of sources. What is really funny is one editor whofavours using the Daily Mail inthis case, rails against it everywhere else <g>[8] (In fact, I find no source of "celebrity gossip" to be better thanCharmin )Collect (talk)15:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noted it. Affairs like this can bring out the worst in people. Well done for the conservative and responsible stance you are taking here. --John (talk)15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day John, could you have a look at this relatively short article before I submit it to FAC? Thank you,Sandbh (talk)05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I have made some initial edits and will comment further at article talk. --John (talk)10:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits seem a littledraconian, John. I fear it may all end intears.Martinevans123 (talk)11:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit there. It's quite a nice article but I think somewhat over-quoted. What do you think? --John (talk)12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's very useful and well written. But I was amazed when I got to the bottom of the page and it seem to positivelyexplode with sources!Martinevans123 (talk)12:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might you look at my edits and talk page comments where I find aDaily Mail claim about a person's living father (that the father attacked the mother physically) based on a "quote" from the son to be unusable? ArbCom officially found me to be a bad BLP person :( Thanks.

Please also look at[9],[10], and the like. Many thanks.Collect (talk)12:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. --John (talk)15:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You agree: fair enough. But then you removed a lot of copy, written by others who disagree. Please engage in the discussion in future, and at least use proper English.Dr Greg Wood (talk)22:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean in an administrative capacity I disagree with adding material on a living person sourced to a tabloid. We mustn't do that. --John (talk)22:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Talk:Murder of Kitty Genovese#Split proposed – I would like to know why you closed that discussion? It remained stagnant for many months. Then, in the past few days, it started getting a lot of activity and discussion. (The case received much renewed interest because the perpetrator dies just a few days go.) Why would you close it right in the middle of that renewed and revived discussion? Thanks.Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the polite question. I came to the article to check whether it had been updated with Moseley's death, and saw it had. I also saw a pretty old article improvement tag, and checked the talk page. I noted that although the discussion had been open for four months there was no clear consensus to split the article, so I closed it. I read the arguments closely and this included the datestamps. I have just reread the discussion and I think I stand by the close. I was particularly swayed by@TheBlinkster:'s argument. I probably lean more towards that interpretation ofWP:BIO1E but I accept that yours could be a legitimate one. It just seems that on this particular discussion, people don't agree with you. Although you're right, there was more discussion in the days following Moseley's death, I do not think the discussion was trending towards a consensus to split either. I think that even on review I would stand by my close. I haveedited the article 32 times, including my format of references and removal of the split tag earlier today. I do not think this makes meWP:INVOLVED however as I regard this as a non-controversial act. Do you feel very strongly about the matter? --John (talk)22:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. No, I don't feel strongly abut this issue. In fact, I have "moved on". I did notice, however, that you closed the discussion with what I deemed was "odd timing". The discussion was dormant for many months (since December, I think?). In the past few days -- since Moseley's death -- the page (and discussion) started getting a lot more renewed/revived interest and postings. I found that quite an odd time to "halt" the proceedings, right in the middle of a new wave of discussion. Being curious about the timing, I decided to ask you about it. Thanks for the explanation. And, again, I don't feel strongly about it. Thanks.Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)00:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's obviously no harm in raising the matter again a few months down the line if the situation changes. --John (talk)00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. Thanks again.Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that generally schools with senior high school/sixth form college/upper secondary school (different countries have variations of them) are generally notable even if secondary sources are not (yet) present in the article. I undid the merges of the English-speaking and French international schools in Harare, Zimbabwe for that reason.WhisperToMe (talk)21:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the notability norms around schools so those two redirects were errors on my part. Thank you for correcting them. --John (talk)21:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toTerry Wogan may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• along with France's [[Jean-Paul Gaultier]] and Finland's 2007 Contest host [[Jaana Pelkonen]]).<ref>{{cite episode|title=Eurovision Song Contest 2008|episodelink = Eurovision Song Contest 2008|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)13:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, Bracketbot, I'll get right over and fix it. --John (talk)13:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images aren't allowed on talk pages.ViperSnake151 Talk 23:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How tedious. I suppose you are right. You were wrong though to remove it from one of the uses it had a specific rationale for. --John (talk)08:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, could you please change the article language template for this article to Australian English? Thank you.Sandbh (talk)06:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course.John (talk)11:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to overlook actioning this one?Sandbh (talk)06:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really a qualified translation from German? If not, perhaps "Keep [the] spirit!" or "Stay, Spirit!" are better translations?178.232.213.58 (talk)11:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's from the film's subtitles.John (talk)11:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on this article? Already had issues atWalter de Gray (detailed on my talk page) and now running into the same issues at John de Gray.Ealdgyth -Talk13:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. --John (talk)16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion onhttp://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20103471,00.html as a detailed source for comments about Seymour in the Rose BLP? RfC on the talk page, but I fear this underscores my opinions about any source of "celebrity gossip" being used on an actual encyclopedia.Collect (talk)12:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking. --John (talk)16:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify ... I didn't like the "and", but I do want you to make edits when you see things you don't like (even though I won't always agree). You made the right call that something was wrong with the sentence ... I moved it and dropped the offending "but". I was being too conciliatory towards the original wording here. (Fortunately, I'm getting less conciliatory with advancing age.) - Dank (push to talk)23:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Just one"? Really? I thought you had an eye for good wording! "Just one" is dreadful, like something a teenage girl or an advertising exec would write. --John (talk)06:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound right to me, but my mind is forever open on BrE usage so I'd like to hear more. I'm gettingmore than two million hits for "just one" in Google's corpus of published books, and none of the hits I looked at seemed breezy or overhyped. That meaning for "just" seems to be listed in standard BrE grammars, such asCambridge. - Dank (push to talk)11:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other edit, I'm not open to changing the verb tense but I can change the verb ... I tried "would inhabit", does that help? - Dank (push to talk)11:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one Cornetto, give it to me. No, the verb tense is even worse. It's partly a British American thing; "would" is the conditional tense and it sounds corny to use it to express the present or recent events. --John (talk)11:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the future-in-past tense. This has been discussed at least twice at WT:MOS over the years. I can change the verb if it will help ... "would continue to inhabit" maybe? [Thinking] Yes. - Dank (push to talk)11:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's both. When given a choice between a longer clunkier tense with two meanings, and a simpler, shorter one with only one, I would almost always go for the latter. --John (talk)12:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know. I placed an alert on the article's talk page atTalk:Prince (musician)#Brace for impact. --Softlavender (talk)04:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, let's hope not. I have asked them not to do it again. Let's see what happens. --John (talk)09:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion? Good idea. But I know I'm in the minority on the whole "have lots of sub articles on things so we can cram in lots of details that don't belong in an encyclopedia". Some people seem to think we're an archive, not an encyclopedia.Ealdgyth -Talk11:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinion about this butthe edit in question was not a good one. --John (talk)19:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I heed John's advice. However, know that softlavender is an extremely disruptive and contentious editor. Just look at all the fights and warnings he's received on his talk page. He is very vindictive. On the other hand, I was being logic and a little bit bold to merge the redirected death article. Rather than edit it, softlavender just reverts is completely. Yet, I will let this disruptive editor win. He adds no content, just disruption. In contrast, I have made some really good edits recently, adding to facts not previously in Wikipedia. Softlavender is an edit warrior who adds nothing to Wikipedia but drama. This is too bad that he is allowed to be so destructive.Whiskeymouth (talk)05:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you and Soft Lavender so attached to this possessive pronoun? WHOSE is used with persons only. Check any grammar book you like. I am not a sock, I am not interested in edit wars, I have neither the time nor the energy, nor the interest, really, but if there is a grammatical error, it should either be corrected or rephrased. I was not aware until this moment that this MINOR error has been corrected repeatedly, to no avail. Get over yourselves. Let it go. It is allowed to pass in fanzines and blogs, but we can do better. And we will. Eventually. Don't slow the process. Thank you for all your contributions.Rags (talk)19:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic English grammar; I learned it at school when I was 10. If you missed out on it at the time (I assume you are more than 10), it's never too late toeducate yourself. --John (talk)19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, a new user is "improving" this article. Can you help yet again?J3Mrs (talk)19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. --John (talk)19:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksJ3Mrs (talk)19:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. How are you doing? I'd like to thank you again for the batch of copy-edits you did to theTitle TK article a while back (as well as the other batch you did previously). I have now nominated the article at FAC. If you happen to be interested in contributing any comments, I'd be really grateful. Also, if you ever need help with articles you're working on, please don't hesitate to ask me. Thank you.Moisejp (talk)02:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. --John (talk)08:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I noticed that you have removed a large part of the curriculum section on this page. I am struggling to see your rationale for doing so. I concede that the article itself is in pretty poor shape – it's on my to-do list to bring up to GA, as I have the other two schools in the area, but IRL time limits and the difficulty in obtaining reliable information mean it will be a while before I get round to it. It's also probable that this section could be trimmed a bit. But the section in question outlines what sort of education the people who go to the school receive, and what choices are available for them to study at GCSEs, all appropriately sourced. Certainly the latter choices are not set in stone beyond English and Maths, and so the information is unique to the school. Given that it is a centre of learning, it is probably worth having some brief summary of what the girls will be studying. This seems to the attitude taken in the two British school FAs ([11] and[12]), which both contain more detailed sections on their curriculum than I have included in KSHS; similar can be said for the GAs (e.g.[13],[14]). Regards, —Noswall59 (talk)08:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

To what degree is this statement true: "the information is unique to the school"? If this is truly the only school in the England and Wales education system to offer this combination of courses then it would naturally be vital to record it. If this was true, we would also expect a wealth of third party sources such as theTES to have picked up and published details of the school's "unique" curriculum. Is this the case? If it is, there is no problem and we can add the material backed up by these many high-quality third-party sources as references. If on the other hand, as I suspect, the school has a curricular model which is completely standard and generic and is therefore of interest only to those who work and study at the school, then Wikipedia is not the place for it and it can continue to reside at the school's own website where it belongs. As regards GA and FA articles and using them as "precedents", while some peer-review is generally better than none, in my opinion the GA process has collapsed to the point where it is effectively worthless. The FA process is a little better, but it is still extremely common to find major errors in Featured Articles. I would rather argue out the matter on its own merits I think. --John (talk)11:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what I meant by "unique" was that the combination is not going to be the same in all state schools because the school has the freedom to include extra subjects. Aside from English, Maths and Science, it is up to the school to pick what courses to offer and whether and how to arrange the teaching of these courses. That is information that parents may well be interested in, and as far as I am awareNotability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. We also should not assume knowledge – someone could be reading this in South Africa or in the United States, and so a summary of the curriculum would be useful to them. I understand of course that the curriculum here is not particularly uncommon, which is why it was discussed in only one succinct paragraph. But it does inform the reader about what is happening in the school. By your logic, no state school articles should have information on their curriculum at all unless their curriculum is radically different (which it won't be, because they are state schools); it seems unusual to me that we have an article about a school—and potentially articles about most British schools—without any mention of the learning that goes on in it/them. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk)14:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Third-party coverage is often a good guide for what it is worth including in these articles. If the school has substantially the same curriculum as every other school in England, is it your contention that every single high school article would list all the subjects the school currently teaches, sourced to the school's own website? That probably wouldn't work for me or for the project. See alsoWP:NOTDIR. Would a link toNational Curriculum for England work? --John (talk)18:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John....can't turn my back on this place for a moment....

Check my talk page.

Regards

Sarah777 (talk)21:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tch. I seeUser:Bastun moved it back. I commented at talk. How are you keeping these days? --John (talk)22:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

link title

Hello John, hope you're keeping well. Sorry to trouble you, but a peer review for the above is taking placehere, and although probably not your area of interest or expertise, I wondered, as a copy editor, if you could take a look to either confirm or counter my concerns that the article is far too bloated for its own good. I'm trying to work with the nominator, who has plans to see it at FAC, but they appear to be reluctant to cut, what I consider to be, most of the bloat out of the article. I've boldly deleted a swarm of information from the first section which highlights de Havilland's relatives - as far back as William the Conquerer, if you please - which I know will be most unpopular with the nominator when he/she next logs back on. Any advice from someone that knows would be most appreciated.Cassianto^Talk22:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to take a look tomorrow but I need to get to bed now. I promise to give it my best shot. --John (talk)22:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; boy, are you going to need that sleep!Cassianto^Talk22:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendlyadvice: "Hush... Hush, Sweet John"Martinevans123 (talk)23:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I see what you mean. --John (talk)11:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always an education, thanks very much for those.Cassianto^Talk10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks for saying so. It's a super article, well done. --John (talk)12:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, we have a persistent IP here, do you think page protection is in order? Cheers,Ian Rose (talk)15:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP. Let'ssee what happens next. --John (talk)15:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, I was just wondering why you reverted my edit on the Skylab article. Let me know, thanks!Kees08 (talk)01:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use image files to convey text in this way. --John (talk)09:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisedthis one has escaped your patentedtabloid-purge-o-matic app.Martinevans123 (talk)11:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Duly removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk)13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently warned this user about edit warring on theWalmart article, just to let you know he has another one going on atTemplate:Infobox Burger King as well. This one involves adding logos to an template in violation of NFCC guidelines and changing financial numbers that were recently updated from the company's 10-k statement. --Jeremy(blah blah •I did it!)19:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am watching. --John (talk)21:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you deleteYellowhead Trail, rather than just revert the cut and paste move?117Avenue (talk)05:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was asked to. Is there a problem with it? --John (talk)09:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect has been there a long time, and the page history should reflect that, it shouldn't have just been deleted. Also, I can't remember where the redirect went to.117Avenue (talk)02:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It went toAlberta Highway 16. --John (talk)06:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John ! Where I live (lat 55,85 long 12,5) has temperatures risen quite a lot the latest days and it's getting close to +25C every time the sun cames through the clouds. It is a feeling of summer and the nights are pleasant. No more freezing before November, I hope. And I wish the same for you ! I hope You will have nice weather in Eddinburgh - and a nice summer elsewise as well.Boeing720 (talk)13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too. --John (talk)18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And give my regards to"Auld Reekie" (music "So Good To Me" byChris Malinchak)Martinevans123 (talk)18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see we have been doing similar things in warning people about the above topic, though probably coming at it from different articles. I hope I am not treading on any of your toes in what I have been doing. I've been trying to get people to work with each other more rather than work against each other onTalk:Countries of the United Kingdom. Of course, some editors are highly displeased at being called into account trying to allege administrator threats and abuse, and there is overlap between the editors we have each had dealings with. I've been trying to identify editors who don't seem already to have warnings about discretionary sanctions and to then warn them. I've also had to remind some of them that the sanctions are not just about 1rr editing but cover other questionable behaviour. DDStretch  (talk)16:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DDStretch for your help. Two heads are wiser than one. --John (talk)20:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, it looks like a first week in July FAC nom for theVincent van Gogh article - it will undergo a major structural change between now and then; can you please keep an eye; your copy edits and advice were really great and appreciated, I would like to think you are still watching over. A page like this needs serious word smiths.Ceoil (talk)13:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I will be happy to take another look. Did we ever resolve the thing about reference formatting? Great working again with you. --John (talk)22:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Citation style is usually a matter of preference, and as far as I am concerned its consistent now, and unobtrusive in edit mode. So yes.Ceoil (talk)22:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you removed the logo of The New York Times from the article infobox. I also noticed that the logos for the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post articles were removed too.

Is there some kind of style guide change regarding the logo? Why are the logos being removed?

ThanksMarquis de Faux (talk)20:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will search it out for you. In the meantime you might consider what encyclopedic purpose these served. None, would be my argument. --John (talk)22:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are. As I said a few years ago,The intention when the logo field was introduced was to substitute in cases where there was no image of a front page. It was never intended to display both. --John (talk)22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Should we do this for The Timeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times as the logo is different from the one on the historical front page displayed in the infobox?— Precedingunsigned comment added byMarquis de Faux (talk •contribs)03:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one seems ok to me. Maybe start a discussion atTalk:The Times? --John (talk)15:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJV11181988 (talk ·contribs) is at it again, adding information that has been challenged, repeatedly. --Jeremy(blah blah •I did it!)20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. Meantime would you start a discussion at one of the talk pages explaining why the changes are unhelpful? --John (talk)22:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, but from what I have learned of his interactions he will not participate. --Jeremy(blah blah •I did it!)15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've began a conversation on theTalk:Domino's Pizza page stating the exact reasons why I have reverted the changes, primarily for violations ofWP:Lead. --Jeremy(blah blah •I did it!)19:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk)19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the moment his block was up he started again, ignoring the MoS and stating his way is the required way to edit an article. Please seeIhop. --Jeremy(blah blah •I did it!)17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked again. We must be headed for an indef next. --John (talk)17:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did add another message on his talk page as to why what he has been doing is wrong and added an avenue to put the information into the article body if he insists on including it. I also explained some of my reasons why I prefer general facts in some instances opposed to exact information that can become quickly outdated. --Jeremy(blah blah •I did it!)17:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you,The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note its use in theCary Grant biography, which appears, to me, to gofar beyond proper weight of allegations and rumours, including use of the DM as one source (your very favourite, IIRC) <g>.

I am happy to take a look but I don't think BLP applies on that article. --John (talk)16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know he is dead <g>, and the issue seems settled now per RfC. Nonetheless, I feelWP:RS applies with regard to weight given rumours, andDyan Cannon (alive) is clearly named in that section. Thanks!Collect (talk)20:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I used an expletive atTalk:Cary_Grant#Higham.2FMoseley_Reviews. Alas - apparently removing material from a discredited book is now considered "damage" and elicited a "fuck off" comment from the person now owning the biography :(.Collect (talk)17:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will take a look later tonight. --John (talk)19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look at "addictinginfo.org" which it appears some persons consider a "reliable source" of some sort. It makes theDaily Mail look like the KJV. <g>Collect (talk)14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. Is this in relation to a particular article? --John (talk)16:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have to do a perfunctory search per certain factors present in its usage, alas. Again, thank you.Collect (talk)20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I know you have had the joys of discussing excessive quotes with the user Light show before (Robin Williams, Einstein and Kubrick are the ones that stick in my mind). I was looking overIrving Berlin and noticed the ridiculous length and frequency of quotes used, and I'll give you one guess on the primary editor there. I tagged, but was reverted andwas accused of acting in bad faith as a result. If you'd like to chip in at the talk page your comments would be welcome, but no problems if you'd rather not get dragged into another quotefarm conversation with LS. Cheers -SchroCat (talk)13:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is that I agree with you. I will comment at article talk. --John (talk)16:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to reviewthis AN report. I am letting you know because there was an attempt to ping you which I suspect did not work.Johnuniq (talk)23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk)05:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - There is currently anRFC on that article's talk page about whether or not the Victims' section should remain in the article.Shearonink (talk)18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe the information you removed inthis diff is relevant and shouldn't be trimmed because both Tony Awards andHamilton are mentioned. What do you think? -Penwhale |^{dance in the air andfollow his steps}06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree with you as I removed this. There is a tendency for heavily-edited articles like this one to become so encrusted in fluff and cruft that it becomes difficult to see the actual subject. This one is about a guy going crazy and killing loads of people at a club. Do we want/need a factoid about a theatre show removing muskets from their depiction? I vote stronglymeh on this one. --John (talk)17:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably. Was more asking for the reason behind your removal; I'm personally also a bitmeh on it, but figured it went with what was already in the article (as it was a performanceat the awards). No worries. -Penwhale |^{dance in the air andfollow his steps}19:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally see your point. I will not specifically remove that sentence if it is added again, but I will probably continue to look in from time to time and trim the bloat as it builds up. --John (talk)21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a sysop, you should know better than to engage in an edit war. Please go re-read WP:PRIMARY ("Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Anyinterpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.") and restore the data. Thank you. 🖖ATS / Talk21:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't. You might readWP:ONUS if you're struggling to see why we can't use a "tweet" to support material on an article. --John (talk)21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not disputing thecontent, you're disputing thesource, which is clearly allowed under PRIMARY. This is profoundly disappointing ... 🖖ATS / Talk21:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for getting a better source. Not much better, but just good enough. Don't you feel there are now too many quotes there though? --John (talk)22:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So was the tweet per PRIMARY and SELFSOURCE, but I've a feeling your sword has felled that horse. As for too many quotes, no; the section quite intentionally sticks to the most pertinent—and is why, for instance,Justin Beiber is not there—and is exactly what I would expect to see several years from now—which, to me, is the benchmark. 🖖ATS / Talk00:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

I have nominatedMuhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi to be one of the 10,000 Vital Topics on Wikipedia here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Scientists.2C_inventors_and_mathematicians

The list currently contains names of 20+ mathematicians but not Khwarizmi!

Please support if you find it justified. -Arman^(Talk)09:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your tutorship!Iurii Komogorov (talk)16:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I get accused of making changes I did not even make at all - I fear that even though I told the other that I am now "200% shamed" that he is "hell-bent for leather" (sigh). Might you examine the Higham article for me doing anything other than using strong sources, and removing unsourced claims? Merci. It is easier dealing with theDaily Mail at this point.Collect (talk)23:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be pleased to take a look over the next 24 hours or so. I think it is a good idea to withdraw for a while. --John (talk)23:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a neutral article I'm Arnold Palmer.♦Dr. Blofeld07:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry John, but you know it is not right for User:Collect to claim that he brought Cary Grant to GA status. It'swrong and a clear lie. 15 edits, all negative ones, and he did his best to get it delisted and hamper progress. If you can't at least stand up here and confront Collect over this and kindly ask him to take it down then you're clearly not acting in a neutral fashion here and acting as if you're his protector. Frankly I have no idea why the likes of you and Eric respect Collect, to me he comes across as a bumbling idiot who produces no content and hangs about the site like a bad smell moaning about sources. I see no redeeming qualities in him whatsoever, what am I missing?♦Dr. Blofeld07:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See[16] where an editor now wishes to ignore the fact that editors who forget that "good articles" must be properly sourced, and removal of bad material is fully as important as adding masses of material.[17] I am getting effing tired of this all. I checkedactual sources if you note how I workUser_talk:Dr._Blofeld#Ellis_Island.3F_Not_for_Second_Cabin_passengers_unless_they_failed_an_on-board_medical_inspection showing that I actuallycheck claims which end up being false on their face, and tend not to love edits which ignore clear copyright violations videUser_talk:Dr._Blofeld#lead.3F_b_Montgomery_Clift.

Might you politely ask such editors to quite kindly stop "shaming" me at this point. I emended my userpage to indicate that I wasnot the one who added bad stuff, that all I seek is to make sure articlesare actually "good" andfollow MOS and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For that I quite cheerfully would be "shamed" a thousand times over. Being limited to 1RR forever does require telling editorswhat the problems are, as I have several stalkers who make sure to follow the rules." Having "official shamers" is not precisely what I think is desired perWP:HARASS, alas. Nor do I think "edit countitis" is a desirable trait in improving Wikipedia.Collect (talk)09:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running to the admin buddy again.. I have no desire to "stalk" or "harass" you Collect, believe me I have better things to do. I just strongly suggest you change your approach towards dealing with sourcing and editors who produce good content here and start showing people a bit more respect. You most certainly harassed me over the Cary Grant article and when I was in the middle of writing it all you were doing is trying to get a source blacklisted at the RS noticeboard. I didn't add the claim on Ellis Island, that was there long before I wrote it and would have been removed before GAR. It is pretty vital to mentionMontgomery Clift's most notable roles in the lede, so complete removal of text is not always a good thing in cleanup, far better to rewrite in our own words if important... There are some deep flaws in your own editing at times, that Higham aticle in particular. So for all you complain about sources, if articles are not neutral and are poorly sourced it seems a little hypocritical don't you think to act like an authority around here? Who has edit counteritis? I most certainly don't. In fact for a while I refused to be named on the editors by edit count out of embarrassment at having so many edits here. High article edit counts in my case equates to hard work, something which you don't appear to be capable of. Perhaps if your "friends" here were more honest with you about your articles and behaviour at times you'd improve. Can't see that happening as people are afraid to question or challenge you Collect for some reason.♦Dr. Blofeld10:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you specifically accuse me of making wording POVwhen the words were already there in the article before I arrived? Why do you accuse me of having "unreferenced paragraphs"when the paragraphs were already there before I arrived? Why do you (FIRB) post over and over and over about how evil Collect is - when the simple fact is that the job if an "editor" is to "edit."

By the way, Charles Higham hadlower standards than theDaily Mail had <g> - he wrote "gossip" forRupert Murdoch for years.Sydney Morning Herald "Beginning his career in Sydney as a journalist and critic for the Herald under editor John Pringle, and then for Rupert Murdoch's Daily Mirror, he grew a tough skin essential for survival in the environment of Australian journalism in the '50s." andDaily Mail "Flynn biographer Charles Highamclaims his research shows the dashing actor's espionage for the Germans led to hundreds dying in concentration camps" (even the DM refused to make it "fact"!) You accuse me of finding only "criticism" - Icould add the DM usage of his Flynn gossip, for sure ...

More to the point, alas, are the "shaming war" advanced in edits here, and at[18] et seq,[19] et seq,[20] et seq,[21] et seq, for as much seqs as is needed. I respectfully ask you to stop this misuse of Wikipedia to attack an editor who believes "edit" means "prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it."(Google def) or M-W "to prepare (something written) to be published or used : to make changes, correct mistakes, etc., in (something written)" and note specifically that isprecisely what I do. I ask you to desist from this "shaming expedition/quest/crusade" at this juncture. And I assure you that researching claims is just as "hard work" as is posting them without verifying what the sources actually support (recall your belief that Cary Grant went through Ellis Island, and that "Archie" was his "last name" for the MOS concerns?).Collect (talk)11:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoonJohn. I have had a look at your last edits to school articles and I do not agree with the your "nn's" (not needed I assume). Why remove the "Boat Club" bit in the infobox? My best guess is that it is there for a reason!

Furthermore, what explanations do you have for removing referenced and, most importantly relevant sections such as "The Worthian Society". Also, why changing the order of thumbnail images that belong to a section like "Sport" to an irrelevant one like "Music"?— Precedingunsigned comment added byCreiterAdam45z (talk •contribs)14:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:V,WP:PROMO andWP:PRIMARY. --John (talk)14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Boat Club bit in the infobox work if I added source to it? Concerning the removal of a section that's referenced by a primary source (the Worthian Society website), I still don't agree. There is no reason why it should be "conflict of interest" in any way, as it is quite direct, neutral and objective information, not serving any advertising or subjective purpose. --CreiterAdam45z (talk)14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm.User:CreiterAdam45z, are you affiliated with any of these schools for which you are advocating? --John (talk)17:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John I have met a few people who have attended these schools, but no affiliation other than that! I am simply interested in UK independent schools and improving their wiki articles. If you take a look at many other UK private school's articles you will notice several of them also contain information related to societies and so on. Is this supposed to be advertisement, or simple factual information? --CreiterAdam45z (talk)20:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can only use stuff like clubs if there is good third-party sourcing. Otherwise it looks promotional. --John (talk)20:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thanks for some of your edits onthis article. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk)18:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kieronoldham, thanks and same to you. It's coming on. A fascinating and repulsive tale. I was in Edinburgh when the first disappearances occurred and remember the searches well. --John (talk)19:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your working on the references. Even though I disagree with a very occasional adjustment or redaction you make, largely, what you do on this article is for the better. Personally, I just like populating and referencing the text. I'd love to see this article nominated as GA. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk)01:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, Could I also add my thanks for your work on this article. Best, David,David J Johnson (talk)12:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. P.S. If you ever have time, I'd like to work with you trimmingthis article as, to my mind, it is one of the most overpopulated articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia (and that is against stiff competition). Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk)19:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isee I've edited that 18 times over 10 years. There are several kinds of trim. One problem on well-edited articles with many sources can be a need for completeness, with all points of view explained in full. This makes for a very turgid article. The other problem, as with the Black article, is one where the coverage is about right but where the prose is long-winded. This is a lot easier to fix. I will certainly take another look. --John (talk)19:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)...Kieronoldham, you have done a fantastic job with Black. John's talk page kept flashing up on my watchlist so I thought I'd take the trouble to see what all the fuss was about. Well, it was no trouble and it was certainly no fuss. As revolting as the subject matter is, I found this account to be very well told and a pleasure to read.Cassianto^Talk20:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd echo that,User:Cassianto. Kieronoldham has been a pleasure to work with, and should be congratulated on his hard work. --John (talk)20:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't bad either John ;). Sorry, where's my manners. In relation to "thanks", I just have, on his talk page.Cassianto^Talk20:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For guidingKieronoldham through, what must've been, a horrible subject to write. Your tutorship during the construction has been fantastic and the project has benefitted hugely from your guidence and collaboration.CassiantoTalk20:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's extremely kind of you. --John (talk)20:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I've never awarded a barnstar before in eight years (even though I've encountered no shortage of assistance and civility from others), but I just wanted to offer this as my thanks for your tireless efforts improving my previous exhaustive populating on theRobert Black article. I can, maybe, to a degree, hold cards close to my chest as far as contributed text is concerned, as precious few people can delve their mind into subjects like this to the degree I do without becoming psychologically scarred, whereas I can successfully compartmentalise any emotions. Basically, what I mean is, you have shown me to be a little more open as to greater avenues. Thanks, John, and genuine kudos.--Kieronoldham (talk)02:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very generous of you. --John (talk)10:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You kindly protected the article but the IP is back reinstating trivia. I have removed it several times since the protection expired. As I've been accused of edit warring atRed House Museum while trying to keep the content encyclopedic, I am loathe to keep doing it so please can you help yet again?J3Mrs (talk)08:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've protected again. --John (talk)09:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. I hope I don't have to return again.J3Mrs (talk)10:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Mathsci (talk)09:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. --John (talk)09:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld has createdWikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.}01:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with thedeflagging of international school templates because flags are a very quick and easy way to tell which "country" a school belongs to. People want to quickly navigate the templates and don't take too much time reading them.

That's why "victim lists" have flags, because it's quick and easy navigation.WhisperToMe (talk)04:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you readWP:ICONDECORATION? If not you may find it interesting. --John (talk)15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware there's been multiple debates on when/where flag icons should be used. It would make sense that someone would write WP:ICONDECORATION to try to iron everything out. Thank you for linking it.

Anyway as per WP:ICONDECORATION one of the reasons why I use the flags is to "improve navigation", and in the cases of these infoboxes these schools do represent their country.

WhisperToMe (talk)11:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, hope all well with you. Been a while since I asked you to look over a FAC but if you check my quick edit to the lead and the result of an even quicker spotcheck of the main body, which I note in the nomination itself, I think you might agree that the text could use some help before we consider promotion. I'm hoping all it really needs is a light copyedit to iron out some simple errors but if you think it will require more time than you can afford, pls don't hesitate to let me know. Tks/cheers,Ian Rose (talk)03:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, I took a quick look and I agree with you. --John (talk)07:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting edit conflicts for days, can only work at certain times, and am a little cranky (as usual). Anyway, I think I managed to retrieve your edit there, and I'm finished for today. Thanks for the many copyedits.Victoria (tk)20:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Victoria, and thanks for yours too. --John (talk)23:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I have moved a politically inspired article naming to a more acceptable article title.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_visits_to_the_United_Kingdom_and_Ireland&action=history

Sarah777 (talk)23:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with that, but it would be wiser in future to discuss moves like this one first. --John (talk)23:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]