Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

AWB cleanup

Hi John. This edit incorrectly changed humourous to humorous on a page with a {{Use British English}} tag present. I notice it didn't change the two instances of "humour" so I guess this is just something you missed in regex or something? Either way, I've corrected it for this page anyways. Cheers, Nikthestoned 09:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

I did actually consider this and subsequently consulted my (albeit, pretty old) OED and found it to be in both forms... I shall concede, however, given the results shown in various on-line dictionaries that you are correct in this matter; apologies for the hassle! Nikthestoned 09:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, did you do this with a script? Most of those dates were populated by reflinks and other automated tools and I'd like to perform this conversion myself if automated. Thanks again, Nikthestoned 09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Never mind, nabbed it from your skin! 11:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

I find comments like this to be intolerable

Either I explode (which I'm sure would be the preferred option for some) or I have to trust in that rarest of commodities, common sense. I know how GAN works, but I'm less sure how GAR works. Geometry guy's tried to explain it to me a few times but I still don't get it. Maybe the right thing to do after all would have been to go on to FAC; at least then some politico wouldn't have been able to flex his muscles by arbitrarily delisting the article, apparently without knowing exactly why except for "she was a bad person". Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Are you both having trouble with this editor User:Jprw? Because he/she is removing important details from the Clint Eastwood article and arrogantly seems to think they are right and seem to be looking down on the article as if its crap. Apparently his highest grossing films and Dirty Harry films are not worthy of mentioning in the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

All too often here it seems like you can't please anyone, but I noticed that Clint Eastwood spat earlier, and I think Dr. Blofeld is right to be concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

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

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

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history

• In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing

• Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion

• WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

• Featured content: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open

• Technology report: With the 1.19 deployment now (mostly) complete, developers consider possible "mini" deployment later in the month

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mddkpp

Hi John, as you blocked Mddkpp can you have a look at Oranjblud who looks like a sock of this user by application of the duck test on their editing pattern. Railway related articles & Hull, use of short months etc. Keith D (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User: earp1957

John, I'm Sorry about the trouble with my latest edit to the Misplaced Pages entry for the Nazca Lines. However, I am at a loss as to how the article I linked violates policy. It is not self promotion. I have a site that gives lots of information for free to educate people about primitive skills and history. The article in question (which I attempted to link at Misplaced Pages) gives rare information that speaks to the history of the lines, the research that has been done over the decades, possible meanings, and describes a full sized replica of the lines which was created with the kinds of tools that would have been used by the original creators of said lines. All in all, extremely valuable information for anyone wishing to understand the full significance of these extraordinary works of art. I have seen other links on Wikiipedia which are at actual businesses, etc. I would just like to understand how my linking to it is self promotion or clearly how it violates policy. I wish only to educate people about the nature of the lines. Have you visited the link? Thank you for your time. P.S. Forgive if this isn't the proper way to present this question to you. I've never done a Misplaced Pages edit before and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to communicate with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earp1957 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Oh wow! When I first asked them permission to put that article up years ago, they didn't have it up themselves! Didn't know they had put it up. Well, the important thing is that this great information is up for people to reference and learn from. Thanks. ~~earp~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earp1957 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Deflaging Lisbon

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. When you recently edited Kamakura, Kanagawa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hagi and Ueda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

GOCE March drive newsletter

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

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

• Interview: Liaising with the Education Program

• Women and Misplaced Pages: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters

• Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators

• News and notes: Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation

• In the news: Britannica runs out of print as Jimmy Wales anointed UK transparency tsar

• Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History

• Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case

• Education report: Diverse approaches to Misplaced Pages in Education

• Technology report: Git learning curve steep but not insurmountable, plus a diff style we can all agree on?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Misplaced Pages Academy and HighBeam accounts

• Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

• WikiProject report: Lessons from another Misplaced Pages: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

• Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

• Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maggie

How could there possibly be any confusion in the mind of anyone with even a basic grasp of English? I'm completely ill-equipped to deal with that kind of crap without calling it crap. Or perhaps even fucking crap. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

As to your second point, there also seems to be some confusion. There's no doubt that the nickname was given to Thatcher by the Soviets, and that's adequately documented. If anyone wants to go further and argue that it stuck because of Thatcher's policies while she was in power then they have to provide reliable sources that say so, otherwise the chronology doesn't work. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Silvstedt‎‎

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

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed  02:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ramones

Hi John,

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

Thanks again for your good intent.

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

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

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Misplaced Pages literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Cruse

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

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

Krista Branch

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

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

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

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

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

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

AE case

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

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

AWB edit to George Orwell bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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