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

Your userpage update

Don't ya mean - 1 January 2015? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, yes I do. Thank you. --John (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear John,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thank you and the same to you! --John (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WT:MOS#Language question

Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Also see WT:WikiProject Astronomy#Language question. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. That anybody thinks "a number of" is better prose than "some" astonishes me, but I suppose it takes all sorts. On Misplaced Pages we are not paid by the word, and where meaning is similar, shorter is better. As regards the "brighter... brighter ... brighter.... brighter" question, I always like to see the TFA blurb look like brilliant prose. While there can be a danger of elegant variation if the changes are random, I stand by both these edits and intend to continue to improve TfA blurbs as long as I have the power to do so. Thanks for the ping. --John (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not looking to take away anyone's power ... I'm looking to go in the opposite direction ... I'd like to see the TFA paragraphs (blurbs) become some kind of group project, and you're certainly invited to the group, but I don't know yet what kind of pushback I'm going to get on that. On these two points: there's at least a suggestion in AmEng dictionaries that "several" and "a number of" might not be interchangeable, that they're both vague but that the second is vaguely more than the first, so I haven't previously been swapping one for the other; but personally, I'd prefer to rewrite "a number of" when I see it, and it looks like we've got support for that. On the second point, I liked your switch to "stronger" but agreed with the suggestions over at WT:ASTRONOMY, so I've added the word "apparent". - Dank (push to talk) 05:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe it was User:Bencherlite about a year ago who invited me to copyedit these blurbs as they come out, so I consider myself already invited, but thanks for endorsing the invitation. As a mathsy/sciency sort of a guy I particularly hate "a number of". Not only is it lazy, longwinded, pretentious and vague, but it is meaningless when read literally, as pi, zero, negative nine and the square root of negative one are all perfectly respectable numbers. You may be right that the habit of turgid and pompous prose is stronger among Americans (I worked as an English teacher in California for a number of years and can vouch anecdotally for this) but it is not a habit to be encouraged and is not compatible with the criterion of "brilliant prose", I would maintain. --John (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We may have gotten off on the wrong foot here, which surprises me, but I don't see anything here we can't work out ... our copyediting sentiments usually agree, and when they don't, there are ways to get answers. I'm tied up for a couple of days, I'll come back to this soon. One thing: I have never said anything remotely like "the habit of turgid and pompous prose is stronger among Americans". - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries Dan and sorry to have given you that impression. I care passionately about language as I know you do too. Disagreement is important in order that we can drag things forwards. You're right, you said you had seen "a suggestion in AmEng dictionaries that "several" and "a number of" might not be interchangeable" and I paraphrased it to "the habit of turgid and pompous prose is stronger among Americans". I certainly wouldn't want to cause any sort of offence as obviously no one country has a monopoly on good or bad writing. I too am rather busy and it will be next week before I am back in my routine again. Take care, --John (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed with all of that. The only edit of yours (of many) that I'd prefer that you revert is this one. If I understand correctly, your point is that the word "apparent" is redundant and this isn't something that should confuse people. I think what the people at WT:ASTRONOMY are saying is that they prefer the word because (by implication, in their experience) people do get confused about the difference, even if they shouldn't ... and that's my experience too. I don't read the word as strictly redundant here. And it's a word that people familiar with astronomy will be looking for to give them confidence that we know what we mean. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me have a look at that and see what I can do. --John (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to work with you. These blurbs are probably too important to be done by one person or a small group. Generally the more eyes the better. --John (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, John. Btw, two of your edits got reverted; "brightest" and "noted" got re-inserted. If you're wondering what I'm going to do about it ... I don't know yet, I need a few more days. I know what I'm looking for ... I'm looking for a lot of people who know something about the prose standards at both TFA and their home wikiproject, so they can help explain practices that often don't make sense to wikiprojects (and sometimes aren't followed at FAC). I'm thinking about how to get there. Your thoughts are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw. Repeating the word brightest over and over is just clunky writing. Saying something is notable on either a Featured Article or its blurb is beyond the pale. I have re-reverted this one and left the user a note. We have a few days before this one is due to run. Let's hope it can be resolved. --John (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Just an update: I feel some sense of confidence that we'll be able to get some kind of process at TFA that will handle these things in some kind of bite-sized chunks that the community can digest. It won't happen overnight; I'll try to bring a few things to people's attention, say, once per week. I hope you'll be involved. I'm asking everyone for patience. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

• News and notes: The next big step for Wikidata—forming a hub for researchers

• In the media: Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap

• Traffic report: Surfin' the Yuletide

• Op-ed: My issues with the Wiki Education Foundation

• Featured content: A bit fruity

• Recent research: Misplaced Pages in higher education; gender-driven talk page conflicts; disease forecasting

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

RAF

Furthermore, the top already links to the RAF (disambiguation) page. It is sufficiently adequate without complicating things further. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you are still quite new here. I will fix up the error you made (you should have used undo rather than revert) and we can continue this conversation in article talk. --John (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Emailed

Check your email, I need copy of a deleted page. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay... now I'm feeling stalked...

Here - and I love the "Add something, get reverted, readd it and then discuss" tactic. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am looking. Give me a day or so. --John (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideomatic matter

Hello again John! I hope You have had a pleasant Christmas and New Year. I cannot really comrahend that we now are in the 16th year of this millenium, the 1999-2000 New Year feels almost as yesterday. To the matter, I've written about the HH Ferry route between Elsinore (Danish: Helsingør) and Helsingborg. It's far from finished. But as I read the lead , I noticed that I had written "line" were it really should be "route" (the route has been operated by many sipping lines through the history. But as I didn't want to use the word "route" finishing one sentence and begin the next with "The short route", I began looking for a synonym. First I thought of "path" but discovered and choose the word "itinerary" (a word I've never even heared before). So my question is, is "itinerary" ok, entirely wrong or perhaps too difficult (There are word in my native Swedish I don't comprahend and hence assume such words exists also in the very synonyme rich Engling language) Any possible comment would be appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look at it and I am confident that I can improve it by copyediting it. I will try to look in the next few days. --John (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That wood be nice, thanks! If there are spelling errors like "ertor" instead of "error", I want to tell You that I have got a disturbing problem with my right eye. It's like looking in water. It came after (not due to) I began wrighting this article.

Aside of the article, would You say that the word "itinerary" is understood as "route" by a majority of British people. I think this is the first time ever I've used a word of which I never before had heared of. Boeing720 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791

Hi John. Happy New Year! Do you think this article is ready for a new FAC? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am on holiday for the next couple of days. I should be back to normal by Tuesday or Wednesday and will give your question the attention it deserves then. --John (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year John!

John,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. LesVegas (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --John (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

Oh really? I am sorry to hear that. What a shame. --John (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Issues

Editswikifornepali claims that Editors in the talk page has been vandalizing my rights, and imparting false knowledge and propaganda, he must be talking about me and Arthur Rubin as we had recently commented on the sections that he had made. You must see . Bladesmulti (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like he is eager for a block. This is clearly disturbing, and he used that word(vandalize) again without even discussing the changes that were already being discussed. You had told him to know the meaning of Misplaced Pages:VAND as well. He was aware of sanctions and he was told that he should not insert these changes if they have been removed once. Apart from that, his misuse of talk page is also evident, both Talk:Ayurveda and my user-talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• John can you add a page notice on Ayurveda about its sanctions?- Like we can see on Homeopathy.- Bladesmulti (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That looks almost normal and it doesn't link to any of the actual restrictions of the page, users may still think that they are allowed to revert up to 3 times every 24 hours. I think it should be:

You can also mention any other rules. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you know that I cannot change it? Only admins or template editors can. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell - request for arbitration

Hi, Here is a heads-up of Martin Hogbin's attempt to add a request for arbitration (mentioning you), it did not work first time so he is seeking help here and referencing this proposed content.

(redacted)

Best wishes, FF-UK (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --John (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a tad concerned about this external-link, provided. Not certain if it's allowable under WP:OUTING. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I've removed it. --John (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Infobox nationality of people from the UK and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings.

Thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

Thanks. --John (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notification

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

• In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints

• Interview: Interview with Jakob, one of Misplaced Pages's more prolific waterway contributors

• Featured content: Kock up

• Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Activity update

I'm sorry as I know there are things I said I would look at here. Since we got back from our New Year holiday, a family member has been ill and while every thing is fine, this constrains the time I can give to Misplaced Pages. I hope to be back up to speed soon. --John (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• They need you. Best of luck! Bladesmulti (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User Dominus Vobisdu

Some people just never give up? User Dominus Vobisdu's recent comment at Talk:Ayurveda
It seems he understood to revert his own comment, but there has got to be a line before even posting one's comments in the first place. Just for your attention in case that the user continues similar behaviour. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. --John (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it standard practice for fringe editors to complain about strongly emotional comments which aren't personal attacks, but which they find offensive because they are defending the dangerous practices condemned by the commenter? Do such complaints do any good, especially since the editor self-reverted what could be considered a minor violation of WP:TALK? Or...is there some history here? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bullrangifer, you can edit others post when you have their permission and they have never objected in the past. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't know that, and that sets up a rather dangerous situation for both of you. The result of such a situation is that you end up being treated as the same person/sock/meat puppet. I have noticed that in practice you practically are anyway. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya's comments do confuse a lot, just like the above one, after reading it I thought that Dominus had actually posted here. Previously as well I had thought for sometime that John had posted on Kww's talk(page) when he had blocked other user, few days after I had properly read that Jayaguru had only copied John's post over there. If he only use diff rather than bringing whole material from one page to other, it would be less confusing. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand how it can be confusing. In such situations, I copy the content without using their functional signature. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In a manner of speaking, "Lyhyestä virsi kaunis" (Finnish), "Lo bueno, si breve, dos veces bueno" (Spanish), "Brevity is the soul of wit" (English). Cheers! ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If possible - urgent help, please

Someone has put "my" article LB (car ferries) up to speedy delation. The user seems to think that everything is covered in HH Ferry route, but LB is just one of several operators (1955-81), and are in my mind importaint since they challanged the DSB monopoly. Even if an article about a specific operator on the route, by nature overlaps the article about the route as such, I fail to see why a user has put the article up for speedy deletion. A shipping line isn't a route and the same route can have several competing shipping lines. If possible , could You please have a look at LB (car ferries) and if this really calls for speedy deletion. I find it horrobly wrong. Cheers in any case. Boeing720 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again John ! The urgency degree dropped fastly, as I got help from Diannaa within minutes ! But nothing prevents You from haveing a look, if so would like and have the time for. Kind regards Boeing720 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/January 17, 2015

Not urgent, I see you're busy ... what do you think of Montana's change from "... known ..." to "influential"? Until we get a process at TFA that works better than the one we have now, I'm inclined to just grab for solutions that keep people reasonably happy, as long as people don't think these quick choices don't set some kind of precedent. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's better than "notable". --John (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted this ... and thought of you

Two Daily Mails, two Daily Mirrors and, as a piece de reistance a citation to the bloody Daily Star of all things! I mean, really.... Ritchie333 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good work, I heartily approve. --John (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It was assessed as B-class! My word. I have cleaned up a bit more of the article, but frankly doing so is a thankless task when every time I try and search for a source for a fact, the top five hits all seem to be The Mail. I despair. Ritchie333 17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Mail is a rubbish source and I applaud you for taking it out. If it hasn't appeared in serious media, it should not be discussed on BLPs on our project. --John (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there are still cases where you might have to use The Mail eg : "Writing in the Mail, 'x' said 'y', but writing in the Guardian, 'z' claims 'x' actually meant 'p'", or "in an exclusive interview for The Mail, Tamara Foursquare-Teapot said she ...." - but most of the time it's unnecessary. However, by far my favourite dismissal of tabloid sources must be this. Ritchie333 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

• Op-ed: Articles for creation needs you

• WikiProject report: Articles for creation: the inside story

• News and notes: Erasmus Prize recognizes the global Misplaced Pages community

• In the media: Misplaced Pages's birthday brings tributes, app, award; Castro death rumors

• Featured content: Citations are needed

• Traffic report: Wikipédia sommes Charlie

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

You were named in a case request Infobox_nationality_of_people_from_the_UK which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The committee concluded that one issue in the case was content, which is outside the remit of the committee, and the remaining behavioral issues should be handled by the usual processes. The arbitrators comments can be found at the Permalink to arbitrators decisions For the arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

help

please tell me how to deal with a stubborn immature editor. Look at the Universe article. I know you probably don't know much about cosmology, but still, can you at least copy edit the lead? "molecules" and "subatomic particles" for example, are already included in "matter". And "wave duality" is simply ridiculous to add there. Please. Feel mercy of the future readers Tetra quark 02:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the Universe lead is being discussed at talk:Universe. In the mean time, John, please have a look at TQ's recent revert of my edits at Galaxy. It speaks for itself. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I also now note that TQ removed my comment at WikiProject:Astronomy, in which I invited editors to contribute at talk:Universe. This has since been reverted by someone else.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark. In saying "...a stubborn immature editor." could be seen to violate WP:NPA, where repeated personal attacks could lead to sanctions including blocks. You have recently done this here. Please desist doing this practice, especially as a guest on someone else's User Page. Please always be polite when engaging with other Users, which applies to me and everyone!

Doing this on an Administrator's page under an article 3RRR Warning and active an "Edit warring / content dispute" on Universe page is very ill-advised. Reverting ten edits all at once of Isambard Kingdom is provocative. Here one or two edits might be questionable, but not ten. Any editor would be aggravated by this! I note neither of these current change were discussed on the Talk:Galaxy by either Tetra quark or Isambard Kingdom. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked Tetra quark for 31 hours for edit warring. --John (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

unblocked

I'm so annoyed and embarrassed I had to go through all this. Being temperamental is really a bad characteristic I have. Well, I'm back to wikipedia editing and I hope to get my AWB permission back soon, as I believe I was using it in a fair way etc. but whatever. I also wish that the Universe article was unprotected so I could add a couple of images I've got that are illustrative and stuff. I wouldn't get into an edit war again, if that's your concern.

Thanks and sorry for all this inconvenience Tetra quark 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back. I am sorry I had to block you. --John (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@John: @Jpgordon:

Tetra quark is undergoing edit warring again. with Kudzu1. The disruptive edits are mostly trivial here, but there is at least an attempt, of sorts, for consensus appears here.

I'm concerned more with the disregard towards other editors. I.e. Tetra quark states to Exoplanetaryscience when reverting "Thanks, but the sentence is not well punctuated and also it is unnecessary. We assume that people are going to read the article."

Edit by Exoplanetaryscience was incorrect, due to punctuation, but rather than correcting it, Tetra quark just reverted it. Saying "We assume that people are going to read the article.", is unnecessary and insulting. Comments on the "Ceres (dwarf planet): Revision history" is enough support.

Perhaps, trying WP:1RR or WP:0RR might be suitable action for a short while, and this would reenforce the need to some conciliatory consensus among editors instead of just alienating them. Really, the only attitude I see by Tetra quark is "get out of my way", with no sign of reasonable understanding or contrition when it comes to editing articles. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked again, this time for 48 hours. Making 5 reverts in less than 24 hours right after the previous edit-warring block expired wasn't terribly smart. --John (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  Hi John. I've unblocked Tetra based on this statement. With that said, I want to make clear that your block was obviously sound, and WP:ROPE is very much at play here in that I support a much longer block if the behavior continues for any reason. I, JethroBT 22:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  That's fine with me. As I said to Tetra quark, there is definitely potential there if he can learn to edit productively. Let's hope for a positive outcome there. --John (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Grimm (politician)

Has two three editors reinserting the "fucking" quote - which I had thought was settled quite a while back. Edit summary for one says "not really" in response to my edit summary that it was already settled. Frankly, I find the use of "fucking" abhorrent, but also find its repeated re-insertion into a BLP to also be abhorrent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Third editor jumped in -- seems to be a "fucking" convention there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this was discussed and agreed in March and April 2014. Has anything changed since then? --John (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope - an IP suddenly appeared, re-added it. I removed it per the prior decisions. Third person enters now saying "Why was this removed? His direct quote is obviously more accurate than someone paraphrasing him" Ni idea why the three thought they could simply by force of numbers undo what was decided not all that long ago - especially since one had actively participated in the prior discussions on all fronts, and seems to have forgotten how WP:CONSENSUS works. Sigh. Collect (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tch. I am off to bed but I will have a look at this in the morning. --John (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have posted at Talk:Michael Grimm (politician). Let us see what compromise we can come to. --John (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC was started -- and it even claims Reuters stated as fact that Grimm said the words, although Reuters said it was only in the transcript and that the recording was "inaudible" in any event <g>. And one editor even asked me for a "cite" for a direct quote fromWP:BLP <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me up to date. Please ping me again if anything else happens there. --John (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I was accused of lying (I suppose) when I quoted WP:BLP by a person who has edited "hundreds of BLPs" <g> and I still wonder how anyone can assert what someone precisely says in an "inaudible recording" (I tried listening - it is almost entirely inaudible except for the "break you in half" quote). Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Now accused of reading and digesting pretty much nothing at all on the topic by what I had assumed were knowledgeable editors. Cheers -- I find such dicta excreta to be wertlos. Collect (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

• From the editor: Introducing your new editors-in-chief

• Anniversary: A decade of the Signpost

• Interview: WWII veteran honors shipmates through Misplaced Pages editing

• News and notes: Annual report released; Wikimania; steward elections

• Op-ed: Let's make WikiProjects better

• In the media: Johann Hari; bandishes and delicate flowers

• Featured content: Yachts, marmots, boat races, and a rocket engineer who attempted to birth a goddess

• Arbitration report: As one door closes, a (Gamer)Gate opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

one last thing

Is it ok to do dozens of edits in a row like this guy is doing on Sun? Tetra quark 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's fine. Here is the overall diff. Looks like modest article improvement and copyediting to me. --John (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The history page kinda looks worse than an edit war to me Tetra quark 16:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you see what I did in the link I posted above? I did one overall diff that shows the aggregate of all the changes. You can see from that that those edits were modest improvements. Some people edit that way, and there is nothing wrong with that. --John (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I get it. Tetra quark 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. --John (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Email

See your email. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jb423

Hi. You blocked this editor ages ago (per WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EVADE), and have probably forgotten about it, but I remember him as he kept making bad edits to several Who articles on my watchlist again and again. Anyway, I looked at some of the stuff that wasn't on my watchlist like this, screamed and took a hatchet to it. I sound harsh but putting this sort of prose on Misplaced Pages really does make the place look like a joke - I reckon I could probably rollback every edit he's done and it would be a net improvement. What options have I got other than just slogging through the prose, or putting up with awful prose? Ritchie333 15:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As the edits were a while ago, I fear that these edits will have to be manually removed. --John (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah well. In the meantime, I created this as a cathartic exercise.

This user hates The Sun and thinks anyone who treats it as a reliable source for a biography of a living person is stark raving mad.

Ritchie333 11:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that is funny. I probably won't display it because I already have enough trouble being knowwn as "the anti-Daily Mail admin, as though there was any other responsible position to take. See Talk:Alexander Litvinenko for details of a recent instance. --John (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think The Sun is far less a contentious issue, it's notability chiefly rests on being downmarket trash, and even editors who would accept the Daily Mail in limited circumstances (which I'll happily admit I do too, though not very often) would think twice about it. Ritchie333 14:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

But this makes the Mail more of a threat, as it is still possible to find people arguing it is a good source to support saying that a living person rubbed a child's tummy, for example. I haven't seen anybody arguing for the use of the Sun in such a case, so it is less of a threat to our project. --John (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn AE on QuackGuru

Good day John! I just posted and withdrew a notice on AE because I spotted that I made an omission on one part, then realized I was likely in over my head. Given the calls for chopping my head off with a boomerang that would likely ensue if I didn't have every I dotted and T crossed, I thought it would be best if I withdrew it for now. After all, it was about one month ago that I came to your talk page and asked you advice on how to handle QuackGuru. A lot of editors chimed in, debate ensued, threats were made, and QuackGuru even preemptively made allegations against you, saying you were involved. An Arbcom was filed against me and several other editors seeking to have us banned, not for bad behavior, but for not seeing eye to eye with other editors on some issues. Who knows what will come from me posting here now? Believe me when I say I'm reluctant to come here. Things shouldn't be like this. I always try my best to be nice and avoiding conflict, so bloodbaths are never fun for me at all. About a month ago, we left it with you contemplating the best course of action, saying the right answer might come about in the next month or so. You had also asked me if QuackGuru's bad behavior extended beyond the acupuncture article. Interesting enough, lately it has actually elevated on the acupuncture article and elsewhere. This is slightly surprising to me because veteran editors have pointed out that QuackGuru is usually only on good behavior when he knows he's being watched. During the elapsed time, QuackGuru has shamelessly made petty, disruptive edits on ECigarette talk, edit warred there, and has taken things up a notch on Acupuncture by accusing others of ignoring consensus while actually ignoring Shii's RfC consensus statement himself after Shii closed it. The editor who opened the RfC, by the way, has been driven away. He was a good editor, an admin actually, and had an entirely different perspective about a conflict. Fresh eyes should always be welcomed, but within a perpetual battleground it's such a shame this can't happen. It's funny, I came here a month ago complaining of the very same behavior that this editor pointed out (at the tail bottom of the diff) over 4 years ago! How can an editor be this bad for this long, never changing their behavior, and get away with it? Let me ask you, now that a month has passed, do you see any way out of this situation with this editor and the behavior in this topic area, or do you think the situation is hopeless? LesVegas (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)