|
Your Military History Newsletter
|
|
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]
User conduct should be discussed at User talk:Gimmetoo or an enforcement forum; MoS implications at WT:MOSNUM
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
[1] The date format prior to this edit appears fine with regard to MOSNUM. What are you doing? [2] Likewise, it usually makes more sense to change one or a few dates in a different format to match the clear majority, per WP:DATERET, rather than change every other. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, we do not support the use of YYYY-MM-DD dates in articles, which the first edit corrected. When correcting this, I generally change reference access dates to one of the human-readable formats in the intersts of consistency. This is not prohibited anywhere and I think it looks better. On the second edit, if you look at the guide you refer to you will see that it is trumped by WP:STRONGNAT. I hope that helps you to understand these edits. So, my turn to ask a question; why did you revert these edits? The revert tool is only supposed to be used to remove vandalism or edits that degrade article quality in the same way as vandalism. As well as the formatting changes (which I accept you did not understand) you removed copyedits I had made. This places your edits dangerously close to being seen as vandalism, unless you clicked the wrong button or reverted without fully reading what you were reverting. In either case, please be more careful in the future, and feel free to undo those two edits. --John (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, please show me where in the Combs article there were yyyy-mm-dd dates in the prose, rather than the reference section? I do not see any. yyyy-mm-dd dates are not prohibited in the references section, and in that article, as far as I can tell, every access date was in yyyy-mm-dd format. Your statement "I think it looks better" is precisely the problem here; you are making arbitrary style changes in violation of WP:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR. On your other claim, STRONGNAT is about mdy and dmy in the article body; yyyy-mm-dd formats are explicitly allowed in the references. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that you did not adequately examine the edits you reverted, that you used the revert button inappropriately, that you do not fully understand the manual of style, and that you lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong. If you ever feel like answering the question I asked you (I'll repeat it in bold below to help you), I'll continue this conversation with you. Until then, here is the question again and cheerio. Why did you revert these edits? The revert tool is only supposed to be used to remove vandalism or edits that degrade article quality in the same way as vandalism. As well as the formatting changes (which I accept you did not understand) you removed copyedits I had made. --John (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have stated repeatedly, I DID answer your question. See the edits you have repeatedly removed: I undid your edit because it included a large number of apparently guideline-violating changes, changes which you have not yet justified. [3] Your repeatedly removing this without discussion is disruptive. If you wish to continue actual discussion, please start by showing where undo is "only supposed to be used to remove vandalism..." I don't see that in WP:UNDO. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems very important to you to be right here. I think your behaviour was disgraceful. I believe your interpretation of the guideline is wrong and certainly removing good faith edits along with edits which you believe contravene a stylistic guideline is stupid. Think for a moment of our users, who are unlikely to care as deeply as you seem to about a minor formatting issue, but will, if editors behave as you have done, care about the degradation in quality you seem to accept as collateral damage in winning your ridiculous format war. It isn't rocket science. If I see you again reverting or undoing edits in a way which degrades the quality of articles, I predict you will be unhappy with the consequences. Never do it again. This conversation is now over, at least as far as you and I are concerned. --John (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not over, John. Make no mistake - this is an issue of your editing, which appears to be in violation of guideline, and disruptive. I initiated discussion by inquiring and asking you for explanation. You could have discussed your edits in an objective manner in regard to guideline and policy, but you chose a different route. You did not appropriately engage discussion; indeed, you actively disrupted the discussion here by repeatedly removing my responses. You also threatened me in retaliation. That is extremely serious. As a matter of record, then, you have received ample warning to avoid what appears to be disruptive editing and administrative abuse. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is making the date format consistent throughout the entire article "disruptive", a word that seems to get bandied around here very lightly? One might reasonably argue on the contrary that what's disruptive is your jumping up and down complaining about having a consistent date format. Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:John changed one consistent date style to a different date style (and did not do so consistently, by the way). Arbitrarily changing styles is against guideline, and User:John's repeatedly removing my comments here did disrupt discussion. Why are you getting involved here? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I think you're making a mountain out a mole hill, just as you did with repeatedly removing the history of a GA review you didn't like, which resulted in you being blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And if I were you Gimmetoo I'd be a damn sight more concerned about the very obvious copyright violation in the Cirok Vodka section.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:John made the mountain here. The guideline says don't change arbitrary styles. It's not complicated. Rather than User:John explaining himself and replying to further queries, he chose to avoid discussion and threaten the user who had questioned his edits. I realize you're not really being serious here, but your silence on User:John's conduct is noteworthy. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What leads you to believe that I'm not being serious, or that I see anything wrong with John's done? And I note your own silence on the far more important copyright violation. I recall you threatening me when you removed my edits in the case I referred to above that got you blocked, so don't come that garbage with me. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What silence? I fixed it. I didn't see John fixing it, and he edited that section. I didn't see you fixing it, and you not only edited the article but brought it up, so you evidently saw it. You bringing up that issue looks like distraction. Do you fully support User:John avoiding discussion and hreatening a user who questioned his apparent guideline-violating edits? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did fix it, but my removal of the offending material after I posted the required notice on the article's talk page apparently edit conflicted with yours. And I find your line of questioning a bit rich coming from someone who threatened to have me banned from GA reviewing. Have you checked the rest of the article for similar copyright violations, or is the date format the only thing that matters to you? Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion concerns an edit by User:John that changed date formats. Your other comments are distractions. Indeed, you posted here at 14:42 about an alleged copyright issue without either posting on the talk page of the article, or changing the article text. I changed the text of the article at 14:57. You posted on the talk page only at 15:09. I can't imagine why you would have tried to edit the article after that- the text was gone by then. So for at least 27 minutes you left in the article text what you believed to be a copyright violation, and instead posted here about it. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how long exactly had you allowed that very obvious copyright violation to stand before that? Months? Years? Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Malleus Fatuorum, you have been blocked repeatedly for disruptive editing, personal attacks, harassment and incivility. Given that lengthy block record, why you would post here rather than just fix what you thought was an "important copyright violation". Why would you chose to edit-war to install templated text about copyright violation on the article's talk page? Do you put that text on every article that's ever had an alleged copyright violation? Have you put that templated text on any other article? Any article you have edited extensively? Is it your position that policy requires that tesxt on the talk page of every article that has ever had an alleged copyright violation anywhere? If so, please justify and support that position. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your position is logically inconsistent to the point of incoherency. I was simply following the instructions at WP:COPYVIO, which you appear to be completely unfamiliar with. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh. Guys? Can we have a bit less testosterone and a bit more being willing to see what the other side is saying? Right now I'm not seeing a whole lot of listening to what the other is saying happening... and nothing is really getting accomplished. If you can't agree on something, usually the best solution is to walk away and agree to disagree... not try to "prove" you're right. While being "right" is often satisfying, if you have to go to these lengths to do it, is it really worth it? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the one foaming at the mouth because I don't like a perfectly acceptable date format. I'm the one who spotted a far more serious problem with the article that Gimmetoo should have spotted. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Congrats, MF. You found an issue with the article that was unrelated to this discussion and which I fixed immediately. Why are you still harping on it? I didn't ask you to get involved here, and given your history (and lengthy block log for harassment and disruptive editing), why did you chose to get involved here? Maybe listen to Ealdgyth a bit. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the highly unlikely event that I ever need your advice on anything I'll be sure to ask for it. Until then ... Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus and Ealdgyth, thanks for chiming in. Here is where Gimmetoo restored a copyvio, some overlinking and an anachronism, in the interests of restoring his favoured style of date formatting. He also apparently can't conjugate the verb "to choose". I shall follow his future career here with interest. Don't tell me this editor is involved in the GA process? Anyway, it's probably time to move on. --John (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User: John, thanks for finally responding and engaging discussion. Now, why did you change a consistent date format on the article in apparent violation of guideline? Further, your claim here that I "restored a copyvio" is an extremely serious accusation. Please demonstrate that immediately, along with adequate evidence that you identified the alleged copyvio yourself and removed it yourself. A small "copyedit" on one part of the alleged copyrighted text is insufficient. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gimmetoo, are you still here? I told you a while ago we were finished. You made a fool of yourself restoring bad edits in the name of some weird date preference. As Malleus pointed out, the material you restored included a copyvio which thanks to his diligence has now been removed from the article. You really should try to learn from this. I really am through with this conversation now. Why not go off and try improving an article? It's a lot more fun and a lot more helpful to this project than the nonsense you've now been pulled up for by multiple editors. --John (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John, I support the intent of your original edit, and have made a proposal to that effect. GFHandel ♬ 05:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I will consider joining that debate. --John (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are three editors I like fighting over something that MOS warriors love to be decisive about and will be happy to glob on to so they can turn this into another date-delinking obsessive debacle. OK, I'm not even going to look at the edits, because you all know your stuff. I'll tell you what was the conclusion when we had this conversation once at FAC talk: article text needs to use internally consistent date formats, citations need to use consistent formatting, but the date formatting in the citations does not need to be the same as the date format in the article text. That is, whether the article uses Month Day, Year or Day Month Year, that should be consistent in the text. If the article uses either of those, or yyyy-mm-dd in the citations, that should be consistent in the citations. We don't ask that the date format in citations be the same as in the text wrt yyyy-mm-dd. If I recall correctly (and I may not), in that same discussion editors gave a technical reason for preferring yyyy-mm-dd in citations, and it's quite likely that Gimmetrow is aware of the technical reason for preserving yyyy-mm-dd in citations. All of you are good editors and know your stuff, so stop fighting with each other, and start talking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's only one technical argument in favour of the yyyy-mm-dd format and it's to do with sorting in tables, nothing at all to do with citations. Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree. Let's take this to the relevant MoS page. Thank you for your comments. --John (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Can you please review the end of this thread, as I do not feel I am deserving of these personal attacks. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:04, 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 I left 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 Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it there for now please folks
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
If I may make an observation, "templating" Gimmetoo was not an optimal approach to raising your concern with him. It seems apparent that you tend to rub one another up the wrong way enough without resorting to such an approach. Perhaps taking some time away from Liam Hemsworth and other interactions with Gimmetoo would make subsequent discussion between you less painful to watch. Yours, AGK [•] 23:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input. The problem is, this user seems to be making edits which only change date formats to his preferred style, which I believe is contrary to policy, as well as edit-warring with me on my own talk, and the harmful reverts of my copyedits which started this whole matter off. I see you have engaged with him and I am happy to step back and let others help to moderate his behaviour for the next while. Templates are designed for policy violations but I accept this was not the most politic method of taking the matter forwards. --John (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course I am familiar with WP:DTTR, but the essay has a counterpart, WP:TR which also carries some weight with me. There's an argument that if you don't like receiving warning templates, you should avoid contravening policy. The existence of that warning template should constitute strong evidence that the behaviour is considered by the community to be undesirable. --John (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John, Gimmetrow knows his stuff. I've responded above, but in my experience, talking with Gimmetrow, according him the respect his knowledge of Wikipedia warrants, is the best way forward. It's sad to see folks getting their backs up over the kind of stuff that led to Wikipedia's lamest arbcase (date delinking); templating Gimme, considering his experience, is insulting :) :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With the greatest respect Sandy, I think you ought to look at the actual edits before commenting. The issue is not about date formatting, it's about whether it is ok to restore errors (including a copyvio) in the name of reverting one's preferred style of date formatting. I say no, Gimmetoo says yes. If you say Gimmetoo knows their stuff I will take your word for it, but this wasn't evident in their recent
clueless unhelpful edits, nor in their borderline-obsessive reverts on my user talk page. I would be grateful if you would look in detail at the edits and consider reaching out to this editor with a view to avoiding the serious consequences which will no doubt follow if they continue like that. Sincere best wishes, --John (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously in my opinion, what is lame is to use pointy arguments and wiki-lawyering to insist that a format of "2012-05-04" is used, when we could write English and assist our readers by using a format of "4 May 2012". Seems obvious, doesn't it (when you take a backward-step and have an objective think about it)? GFHandel ♬ 20:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well sure. It isn't worth edit-warring over, as Gimmetoo has done, and it certainly isn't worth degrading article quality for, as they have also done. I am not sure where this bee got into Gimmetoo's bonnet, but there are various guidelines and policies being flouted here, not to mention common sense. --John (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bees have a habit of flying into Gimmetoo's head and refusing to leave. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I tend to agree with your edit summary; Gimmetoo's real crime here was to blanket revert many changes simply because he didn't like some of them. Nevertheless, I don't wish to discuss the matter further here. --John (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
That Beatsie Boy fellow is dead, and it's been confirmed by multiple reliable sources. He cannot be listed as a current member of the group any longer. Keith Moon is not a current member of The Who. Brian Jones is no longer a current member of The Stones. 24.112.139.6 (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree. It is terribly sad. --John (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Short version here and now gone. There has been hounding from a group of editors with whom Alarbus was friends. Personally I'd like to see the issue dropped because it's time to move on. People have lost a lot of skin over this. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh. But what does any of this have to do with me? --John (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. But I do understand Sandy's concern in regards to some of the people who have been posting to that talk page and their relationship to Jack Merridew. It's a very long story and not one I want to dredge up. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. Well, I think the MoS question should be clarified before we get any more nonsense like this, lest we have the date delinking Arbcom all over again. --John (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that. The issue is that there have been serious problems with hounding and when 2 or 3 editors who are Merridew supporters suddenly show up on a page tended by an editor who has previously been hounded by Merridew, the waters get muddied, unfortunately. That's what's happening. See this for example. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a shame, and it's even more of a shame when good editors like me and Malleus get dragged in as collateral damage. Usually the only times people talk about a cabal here they are joking; it's weird to see someone I usually respect throw the term around so loosely. --John (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And Ceoil, who has taken more than his fair share of shit because of Merridew and it's a situation that destroyed our working relationship and friendship. That's exactly the problem with hounding and how things like this become amplified and the underlying issues become secondary. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've actually met RexxS, one of those being accused of being a member of this cabal, and I found him to be perfectly reasonable and good company. The only thing we disagreed slightly about was Rlevse, and I really can't sign up to the idea that he's been harassing anyone. But what I can say categorically is that the Merridew business is absolutely nothing to do with me; I barely even know what it's about, and it's certainly not a factor in my opposition to Gimmetoo's date formatting preferences. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Och. There was no way I could have known any of this backstory when aligning date formats while copyediting then seeing my changes reverted. Maybe SG needs to AGF a bit here? --John (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that Sandy has accused either you or me of doing anything underhand has she? I'm trying to remember how I came across this date formatting issue (maybe a posting on here?), but it sure as Hell wasn't because I'd been recruited by any cabal. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think she has, and also called me an "abusive admin". I haven't heard that one for a while. In other news, I was delighted to see Hibs not getting relegated earlier this evening, so it isn't all bad. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I was pleased to see that Wigan managed to avoid relegation from the Premier League this evening. Why on Earth can't they play as well at the start of the season as they do at the end? Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad news for Blackburn though. Why are there so many placenames starting "Black" anyway? --John (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two issues: the date issue and the issue of the hounding. From what I've read at that page RexxS has good reasons to comment, but also RexxS was very clear that I needed to put a leash on Ceoil and RexxS was extremely hard on me re Merridew. Because Gimmetoo also has history with Merridew, the two have become mixed up. I don't think either of you are part of a cabal - you're reacting to the date issue and as John said couldn't have known the rest. And as I've said, I'd prefer to let it be. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)r[reply]
Regarding this edit:[5], You might be interested to know that this subject is currently under discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Your input would be welcome as we build a consensus, with the possible outcome of resolving this edit war. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please remove this highly offensive post?[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it offensive? It describes exactly what you are trying to do. --John (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly am I trying to do? Explain policy to you? I would think a "thank you" would have been a more appropriate response. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you posted here is the exact equivalent, in Wikipedia terms, of the one-drop rule. I believe using ethnic and religious categories to label people who do not label themselves to be the moral equivalent of the yellow badge. I stand by what I said and will not redact it. I have only just noticed that you attempted to remove my post. Please, never ever do that. Take a good look at your own behaviour before you try to lecture others. --John (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being Jewish is nothing to be ashamed of, John. Now, you're free to believe in whatever you want to believe in, but here on Wikipedia we follow WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Please try to remember that, and for heaven's sake, don't blame the messenger. You may have the last word; I'm removing your talkpage from my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No more than being black or being gay; none of these are things to be ashamed of either, but we only apply them to living or recently dead people with the greatest of circumspection out of respect for those people's rights. I am intimately familiar with the three policies you link to in your message; is there a specific aspect of one of them that you think pertains to the disagreement we have had? I assure you that I do not blame you for being wrong on this, and I would far rather we were able to reach a working compromise than think I had scared you away with the force of my argument. I remain convinced that I am right on this matter, but I also remain open to future conversations with you about it. --John (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
since I sent you an email .. I thought perhaps it was only right to say what I think on-wiki. I applaud your work ,, and I think you do well at speaking the truth. I admire your efforts, and I'll be proud to support you. — Ched : ? 03:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Once again, I really appreciate it. --John (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit:[7], I would like to explain that this is not promotion. Behind this correction there is a legal problem. Harmonic Drive is a registered brand mark in Europe as well as in the US-market and not allowed to use it as a generic term (see also the german side of wikipedia/Harmonic Drive. The only reason I added the information that there is a company called Harmonic Drive LLC is that there have to be a connection to the key word "harmonic drive" and the explanation why sometimes it's called a harmonic drive gear. Sorry if this is not the correct way to contact you but I'm not familiar in doing this on wikipedia--HDSC (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2012 (CET)
- No worries, I replied at your talk. --John (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. --HDSC (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2012 (CET)
Hi John, I hope I did it correct now. I will wait for comments. Thanks again. --HDSC (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (CET)
John, I'm going to be traveling soon and want to archive my talk. I haven't heard back from you after things became heated. From reviewing your talk, I saw you weren't aware of everything involved, and I hope you now understand the backstory, and we can move on. Or hopefully, move back to the good relationship we enjoyed in the last few years. Let me know please if you want to continue discussing, as I'd like to archive. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't follow any subsequent discussion at your talk page as I already knew the backstory via another editor who explained it to me here. I am perfectly happy for you to archive and move on. Good travels. --John (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk
I have added a db-hoax tag to Long Island New Jersey Railroad. I see that you have already warned User:Shreder 9100 for adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I have deleted it and asked the user what they were thinking of. --John (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that User:Shreder 9100 also vandalised Adobe Systems in March 2011. Biscuittin (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I blocked them for a week; I was reluctant to block indef at this stage as it seems they have made a couple of good-faith additions. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will look at his/her past edits and see if anything else looks dodgy. Biscuittin (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for letting me know. --John (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On 5 January 2012 he/she changed the photos on Shore Line East, Old Saybrook (Amtrak station) and Acela Express. It would be useful if someone with local knowledge could verify that the new photos are what they claim to be. Alternatively, we could just revert to the old photos. Biscuittin (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the picture is representing the French Marie Sklodowska Curie (she is from Poland!!), who lives in France. Is not this a bug? What do you think?
Top811 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think it is a bug. Why don't you raise it at Talk:French people if it bothers you? --John (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added back two sections. It is simply wrong to have an article on an independent school that doesn't mention the scope of their academic programmes. The extra-curricula section, I agree, needs trimming, but when they appear to have won national competitions then that well merits a mention - sourcing not excision is the way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't worth noting that a school in Scotland presents students for exams under the Scottish exam system, as all schools do this. As for the extra-curricular cruft, you can have a week to source it; per WP:V we can't leave stuff unreferenced forever. --John (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored the sourced content, please do not remove it again without talk page agreement. Independent schools have a choice of which syllabus they follow; for example they can adopt IB. I am not subject to your artificial deadlines. I am placing the sarguments on the talk page. Best, TerriersFan (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will remove anything I see without decent sourcing a week from now. I suggest if it's important to you to keep it that you get to work and find some sources. As regards the curriculum, it really wouldn't be noteworthy for a school in Scotland to follow the Scottish exam system. If they did follow the IB or the English system (and a very few do) then this would be worth recording. Best, --John (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John, You are being quite unrealistic here. You have been redirecting and tagging a large number of articles in a short space of time and have made no attempt to check for sources or add sources yourself. TerriersFan has done some excellent work sourcing hundreds of school articles and bringing them up to the required standard. Rather than tagging lots of articles unnecessarily it would be much more beneficial to the Wikipedia project if you could help with the sourcing yourself. Dahliarose (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion. As a volunteer, I am of course free to use my time here how I like, so long as I remain within policy. I would argue it would be better if he and you could spend your time on the project looking for references for some of this dodgy material, rather than restoring completely unreferenced material then expecting others to do the hard work for you. I think you'll find though that policy is on my side on this one. --John (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. There is a debate running at Talk:Newport in which you might have an interest. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I commented. --John (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your input. Maybe it's not going to be so clear-cut after all. I had hoped a poll might have averted more edit warring. But that seems to have been too optimistic! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a query you posed for me, on Talk:Sean Combs I see SandyGeorgia and Faranamax also as objecting, and on GFHandel's talk page I see Jc3s5h as trying to resolve the situation. Moreover, the general principle is very well established, and the reason that we have policies and guidelines is so that editors don't have to make the same argument over and over on numerous talk pages. The general principle with the MOS and with WP:CITE is that optional styles in articles should not be changed at whim, and that if there are objections to a change then the established style should be maintained. This has been a stable part of the guidelines for years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the speedy response. I fear you may have misunderstood the discussion there. SG and Frananmax were objecting to the change of date formats, in a section headed Date format change proposal. We are taking about the standardisation on using cite templates which GFH proposed on 10 May. As far as I can see there have been no objections other than from Gimmetoo. I don't blame you for getting the wrong end of the stick as it has been a disproportionately long series of discussions over a fairly minor matter of formatting. I definitely see no fault in what GFH is doing. While you are here, I wonder if you could have a quiet word with Gimmetoo, as he seems to be getting unduly het-up about this minor change? Thanks, --John (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I view both as parts of the same general phenomenon of changing the way that citations are handled in the article. Gimmetoo may be upset, but the general prinsiple is on his or her side here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J
Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles.
Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg
|
Hi, John. This is a courtesy notification that I have mentioned your name in a discussion at WP:AN. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Query about a serial sockpuppeter. It's related to the work you were doing at Sean Combs. Regards, -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 21:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --John (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John -- I don't know any admins personally, but based on some stuff I saw, you seem to be a fair one who resists being trifled with. I need some help from one of those.
I'm a seasoned, mature adult who is a reasonably prolific non-problematic editor (8,000+ edits with near-zero complaints). I've recently been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. There is a minor basis for the block, which was made in a "take no prisoners" campaign by folks I politely disagreed with in a controversial article. I'm preparing an appeal, which should be successful if judged fairly. I have zero personal experience with blocks, but I've read the pertinent material about them. I assume good faith, but I'm not sure that I'll be treated fairly in this matter, due to the "take no prisoners" stuff, which I suspect will continue. It will take me a few days to do the appeal.
In the meantime, two users were wrongly identified as my sock puppets, and are now blocked. One of them is somebody I know well. I helped her to get onto Wikipedia, but she certainly hasn't been involved in any sockpuppetry, and had nothing to do with the recent dispute. Another is somebody I never heard of before, who got labeled as a sockpuppet because he posted a one-line comment agreeing with me in the dispute. (That's part of what I mean by "take no prisoners".)
I will cover both these users in my appeal, but I'm concerned that they will be screwed because of perceived association with me. They are blocked at the moment, so there doesn't seem to be any way for them to dispute the block and/or defend themselves on their own. Does such a way exist, and if it does, what can I/they do to take advantage of it? 216.183.185.87 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, firstly I am flattered that you have a good impression of me as a fair admin. Secondly though, I don't have much experience in this sort of thing. I am generally strongly in favour of giving a second chance to those who are blocked if there is even a whiff of a possibility they will reform or that they were unfairly blocked. Thirdly, without knowing the details of the case there is no way I could give more detailed advice. The stock response would be to email the blocking admin or else arbcom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. I will be happy to look at your situation if you can give me some details. What username were you editing under when you were blocked? --John (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (passing by) I believe this is the case in question.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Berean Hunter has it right, I am User:Lou Sander. Kinda Orwellian, since I contacted you from a public computer and as an anonymous editor, my own username and IP address having been blocked, yet some fellow was able to find my conversation with you, then connect me to it.
- IMHO, somebody has done something very wrong by blocking MathDame, who is the person I know well (referred to above). I never heard of Yaush. Right now, both of them are blocked, the block indicating a false connection with my alleged sockpuppetry. They are wrongly accused and have not way of responding. This is not a good thing for anybody at Wikipedia to have done, and I'm trying to help make it right. Any advice or assistance from you would be appreciated. 216.183.185.87 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am looking. Give me 24 hours or so. --John (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that it was determined that Yaush was not a sockpuppet per se, and was not blocked —DoRD (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, here is an initial question. Can you describe in a little more detail why your main account was blocked? Can you outline for me the nature of the appeal you say you were planning to make? If you do this, I would be prepared to discuss unblocking your main account with the blocking admin with a view to unblocking you. When doing this please bear in mind the requirement in this context to focus on the aspects of your own behaviour that you intend to change. Good luck; you seem on first impression (and I say this without yet having looked at the circumstances of your block) like a sane and well-intentioned person. --John (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you also comment on edits like this one for which the IP you are currently editing from was warned? --John (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John asked me to comment here, so here goes. First, I think that you are running a risk of exacerbating your situation by editing here anonymously. You really need to log in to your main account and move this discussion to your talk page and/or start an unblock request there. (You are also welcome to take advantage of WP:UTRS, if you would be more comfortable there.) If you wish to communicate directly with an admin or other user, the Special:EmailUser function is available to you. As the blocking admin, though, I will say that the evidence presented in your sockpuppetry case is pretty clear. However, if I have somehow misinterpreted it, and have come to the wrong conclusion, I will gladly remedy the situation. —DoRD (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DoRD alerted me to this discussion, as I was the CU involved. I agree with him that you should continue this discussion on your talk page, which you can still edit with your account, or at least via the other less obscure routes, as doing it here might not reflect well. I personally think that an indefinite block was a little harsh and a finite one would have been fairer.
- The evidence that got MathDame blocked with the view it was your account was that it edits from the same location as you do, and edits the same area. Yaush was not viewed as one of your accounts because he edits from a very long way away from you. You should consider that involving people you know to edit in the same disputes/issues/areas, known as meatpuppetry, is viewed in the same light as sockpuppetry.
- The CheckUser evidence I retrieved leaves nothing to the imagination and there is no conceivable way for another CheckUser to come to a different conclusion. You should bear in mind that you are blocked as a reflection of your behaviour - referring to other users' conduct (none of which appears to be at fault) and describing the sockpuppetry as an "allegation" is not going to be in your favour. There is no reason or incentive to unblock someone who does not take responsibility for their actions. WilliamH (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are on thin ice. Quite clearly against talk page consensus by everyone while you demand your way. As said the onus is on YOU to prove otherwise. And if there is a problem with a source take it to RSN (as mentione dmultile times...while a discussion there has been opened)! At this point it is not AGF and possible vandalism.(Lihaas (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
- I am sorry, you'll have to explain what exactly you are complaining about. Are you maintaining that our policies don't protect the recently dead? Or are you talking about this discussion? I am sorry it seems we disagree on the reliability of the Daily Mail. The first one is non-negotiable though; we treat the recently dead with the same caution as we accord the living. Sorry if you don't like it but there it is. --John (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the edits to the "Soil" article. I can't believe how many errors I let slip. I don't understand the use of "2.0 mm" and such that you applied in a number of places. Is it a special space?
I hope to make the article a good article someday but I seem to be the sole editor at this point. Feel free to make more such changes. I will follow your lead with the examples of changes you made. There is much work to be done. I hope the article reads well. I pride myself with an ability to write simply and clearly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort (talk • contribs)
- Yes, it's a non-breaking space. AWB adds it to dates and numbers with units to ensure they don't split across a line break. It's a nice article, thanks for your work on it. --John (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was wondering if you'd like to comment at this talk page about changes I proposed to the article In Utero (album). Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will take a look.--John (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - just wanted to give you a friendly heads-up that, whatever AWB script you were running a couple of hours ago, it has a bug in it. It was tagging disambiguation pages as orphans, which you'd naturally hope they would be. See WROK, 1440 AM, and 105.5 FM as examples. Mlaffs (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, yes I did wonder about that. --John (talk) 08:00, 20 May 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Ranger (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for letting me know, Night Ranger. I am sorry you didn't like the results of the discussions at Talk:Adam Yauch#Request for comment or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive152#Adam Yauch. In the circumstances, edit-warring to restore the disputed ethno-religious category against consensus then running to AN/I for support would seem like your obvious next move, as it is so important for you to categorise this recently-dead rapper in a way he did not categorise himself, in violation of WP:BLPCAT. Have at it, and I hope it works out for you. By the way, it's one-drop rule that you are emulating, not "single drop rule". Yellow badge is another interesting article which is relevant to what you are doing. --John (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|