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

Happy New Year 2013

May the New Year bring everything you wish for and more!
Wishing you and yours all the very best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, --John (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Sandy. --John (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I lol'd

At this. And of course, I couldn't agree more.

Take care. =) Kurtis 16:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. --John (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Always a pleasure to back a man who has enough integrity and good sense to see things as they are. Kurtis 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Help at the Liana Cornell article please

Hi John. There's a little trouble at the Liana Cornell article with which I've unfortunately got involved today. The article is pretty dreadful, and to be honest (and despite my inclusionist tendencies) it is probably pushing the notability boundaries (let's be honest, appearing in five episodes of a TV series, studying at an acting school, and being the daughter of a minor television personality probably isn't enough; is it?). I'm not the only editor who has questioned the claims of the subject being called a "model", however there is now an editor who thinks that minor mentions in sources (and none to specific modelling assignments) is enough for inclusion in: the article text, infobox, and categories of "model". I made one revert this morning, however I'm happy to leave the article alone pending what others say. Apart from the article itself (about which I'd be keeon to hear your opinion), I'm having trouble convincing that editor not to post on my talk page (despite repeated requests) as I believe that the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page so that other editors can be involved. Thanks in advance for any advice that you can give on this matter. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems marginally notable. I cannot see the "model" claim in the source so I have asked the other editor. --John (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me instead of calling me a liar and blindly reverting my sourced edit. I think someone could learn from your example. Yes, notability is marginal but that's not the reason for that request above. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideas?

Hi John,

Looking through the edit history at Cannabis (drug) I see we are having the same issues with the same editors as you have dealt with there in the past. We're talking about it here - I wondered if you had any ideas for how to put a stop to this slow, ongoing edit war. petrarchan47tc 08:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. --John (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Flagators is now using a sockpuppet to pursue inane campaign

I see that you have already had to deal with this single-issue new account. Well, it looks like they have just discovered the sockpuppetry ploy. Oh joy. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. What a sterile dispute. Could you take it to WP:SPI? I think I am too involved to block. --John (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Mais oui! (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick work! Let's see what happens. --John (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Beijing: Air Quality

erm... that was quick. And total.

Sources would be nice, yes. But, which aspect of this contribution needs sources?

PM2.5 is from coal smoke, isnt it?

Should a new section be added?

~ripe.program 22:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripe.program (talk • contribs)

Everything here needs to be verifiable, so there needs to be a source for everything you add. --John (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

verifiable or verified?

I am aware of this problem. To say 'everything needs a source' is over-inclusive, isn't it? Many other points are made, on Misplaced Pages in general and even within this same section, without citations.

As i stated, data on the percentage contribution of heat generation to pm pollution is not available (or existing). But no figure is cited.

On the other hand: 1. heating is provided by coal, as described: This is common knowledge. Discuss... Is there any resident of Beijing who would suggest otherwise? Would you? 2. coal burning contributes to air pollution: any suggestions?

Those the only two points being made.

On the broader question of contribution: Admissibility of information: regarding knowledge of China, one must make certain allowances, or simply accept a state of un-knowing. As the science fiction writers used to say, to proceed by eye rather than pi. Is a blank really better than a description? Discuss?

In general, I agree, it would sure be nice to see someone, somewhere, who has published some semi-official material on this subject. Then, I could simply say: "According to...". That such material is not available in english is not surprising, at all. Who talks about small scale coal use in China? Who can talk about it?

Wouldn't it be better to make a specific challenge to the material? Wouldn't that make the page better, as in, more informative, interesting?

Would you say, I should tone it down? Is the 'small nation' comparison too stark?

At your service, ~ripe.program 22:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripe.program (talk • contribs)

See WP:NOR. --John (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the entry from yesterday, and re-parsed and re-written it. Please take a look; I think it is much improved, making the same point while depending on more verified statements. ~ripe.program 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripe.program (talk • contribs)

It's nicely written but it still needs to be verifiable. --John (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangers FC article

Hiya John,

If i have to add any text to the article could you verify the English ie spelling, grammar and punctuation? making sure the article reads well and continues it slow progress to GA. Whenever i add anything i am spell checking it but that does not always work 100% works most times but it certainly doesn't fix grammar or punctuation errors or errors like there should be their. I know you do watch the page and update it when you can but if you are able to do it it saves me hunting down a copyeditor to fix my mistakes and i can just let you know on your talk page i have added something what it is and where. If you to busy no worries i will get it fixed eventually just might not be soon after addingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Andrew, it will be my pleasure to help out there in any way that I can. Thank you for asking. --John (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Baklava

I left you some baklava over at Commons, because I'm just cool that way.

Take care, and drive safely. =) Kurtis 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

First, yes I think the block for Guitarhero on the roof was warranted. Second, I find comments such as these deeply offensive. Can anything be done? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made a proposal here and here which I hope may help. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Much better than anything I could do. I'm reduced to sputtering - which is why I'm not, nor will ever be, an admin. I'll weigh in at AN/I in a little while. I'm a little leary at this point because I didn't know the 88 in my username identified me as a neo-nazi. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. It's some numerological thing about Hitler's birthday, or something. I don't think you're a neo-Nazi, or if you are you keep it well hidden. --John (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting sociological question on Misplaced Pages. I wonder if things had gone better for Malleus if he hadn't chosen that username. If I were, say Arwen, maybe everyone would bow down and be sweet. Makes you wonder. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Your extension of the block made me feel guilty of having made him unwittingly broken his topic ban, by continuing to drive the discussion forward. I honestly didn't consider that you meant it to apply to discussing the topic on his userpage. But I do agree that it probably should - but obviously other editors shouldn't be talking about it there either. Perhaps for the sake of my conscience you could say that that point is made now and then shorten his block back to the original length? Then I promise not to post at his talk again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)