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

Removal of Newspaper Logos

Hi,

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

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

Thanks Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Very well. Should we do this for The Times https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Times as the logo is different from the one on the historical front page displayed in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de Faux (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

user:DJV11181988

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

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

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail rears its head again, inter alia

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

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

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

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

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

amazing the type of sources some people use

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

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

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

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

• News and notes: WMF cuts budget for 2016-17 as scope tightens

• In the media: Jimmy Wales on net neutrality—"It's complicated"—and his $100m fundraising challenge

• Featured content: Overwhelmed ... by pictures

• Traffic report: Pop goes the culture, again.

• Arbitration report: ArbCom case "Gamaliel and others" concludes

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video Games

Quote farm

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

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

The Description

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am glad that you now appreciate that we cannot copy and paste verbatim extracts from a source into articles without attributing the source or identifying it as a quotation from a source, as you did here. This is precisely square in the centre of anybody's definition of plagiarism. It is lazy and dishonest, and would cause you to fail at secondary school level if you submitted this for a school project. It is indeed, as you put it, "dishonesty by virtue of trying to claim credit for somebody else's work". I should perhaps have warned you before blocking you, if you really did not think there would be a problem with this edit, although it calls your honesty and competence as an editor into question. I was influenced in blocking you by the fact that you had recently been blocked for related misbehaviour in a related area. I will issue you with a one-second block making clear that you were blocked for "misunderstanding of the nature of plagiarism", and not copyright breach. It is likely that the text of History of England from the Accession of James II by Thomas Babington Macaulay, published between 1848 and 1861, would qualify as public domain for our purposes, so I was mistaken to mark your block as one made for copyright violation; the block reason should have been plagiarism and disruptive editing. Having said all that, I remain concerned at the overall tenor of your editing, and would counsel you to be very careful that your strong POV about matters of Irish history and vexillology does not lead you into further difficulties. I note your comments here and would consider this as evidence of an ongoing problem with your attitude to Misplaced Pages. Would you consider avoiding these areas for a while until you learn the ropes a wee bit? I think having someone new getting the hang of our protocols and procedures in an area where you have a strong point of view which is under Arbcom sanctions may cause further friction and disruption if you so continue. --John (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

AN discussion

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

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

Your recent edit to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

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

Disagreeing with a specific edit.

Personally, I believe the information you removed in this diff is relevant and shouldn't be trimmed because both Tony Awards and Hamilton are mentioned. What do you think? - Penwhale | 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Understandably. Was more asking for the reason behind your removal; I'm personally also a bit meh on it, but figured it went with what was already in the article (as it was a performance at the awards). No worries. - Penwhale | 19:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

• News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov

• Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group

• Featured content: From the crème de la crème

• In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing

• Op-ed: Commons Picture of the Year; Wikidata licensing

• Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle

• Blog: Why I proofread poetry at Wikisource

Recent archiving

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. You recently archived a posting of mine in which I thanked other editors for their support during a rather acrimonious thread. I am not disputing your right to do that as an admin, but I genuinely do not understand your motivations. Is it wrong for me to make such a posting? DrChrissy 17:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. When threads are archived you do not add to them. --John (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

John, DrChrissy added the note outside the archived box which was then extended by another user, just fyi. EdChem (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed both. --John (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant that the box was extended by another user, not that there was a follow up comment. EdChem (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see what you mean. Oh well. I still stand by the principle of not adding to archived discussions. Especially in the context. --John (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

John, I do not wish to appear argumentative, but I did not add to an archived discussion. The thread had been closed in a box which states "do not modify this closed discussion". I did not modify it. It had not been archived. I simply added a message of thanks outside the box. This was a courtesy message to all those who had taken the time to post messages in support. DrChrissy 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Before we get entangled in terminology, my understanding is that when a thread is boxed it is "closed" until it is moved to the archive pages when it is considered to be "archived". DrChrissy 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Want to comment on the facts only. Both DrChrissy and I made further comment on that thread after it had been hatted and closed. An editor then extended the hat to include both our comments. at that point our comments appeared as if they had both been made after the hat and close, but inside the hat. I believe this entirely supports what DrChrissy has stated above. Thx. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

From the point of view of the person adding a small note underneath an archived section, their action is good and has a benefit in that they letting others know what they think. However, what about all the other participants who may have differing views? Should they add their summation? There can be no firm rule about these details, but it is very reasonable for an uninvolved admin to think it would be better to draw a line at the close of the section to avoid it rekindling, and in fairness to others. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

On the procedural issue, I have acknowledged upthread that you are right. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and I stand by my judgement that this discussion had run its course and that adding to it was a mistake. User:DrChrissy, I was disappointed that you immediately disregarded my friendly advice to stay away from the area of conflict. --John (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In which respect John? The posting after the close or my posting here? DrChrissy 12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The former, as I've laid out on your talk page. Let's continue that conversation there; it's too confusing otherwise. --John (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Seriously?

As a sysop, you should know better than to engage in an edit war. Please go re-read WP:PRIMARY ("Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.") and restore the data. Thank you. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

You're not disputing the content, you're disputing the source, which is clearly allowed under PRIMARY. This is profoundly disappointing ... 🖖ATS / Talk 21:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

So was the tweet per PRIMARY and SELFSOURCE, but I've a feeling your sword has felled that horse. As for too many quotes, no; the section quite intentionally sticks to the most pertinent—and is why, for instance, Justin Beiber is not there—and is exactly what I would expect to see several years from now—which, to me, is the benchmark. 🖖ATS / Talk 00:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see you've been trimming a lot of articles I've worked on populating. Good job and sincere thanks. :) You have made me more aware of some slightly meandering sentence structure/linking I use a little too often. Thanks a lot and regards. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I believe the usage of the words "however" and "nonetheless" could be reduced from my formatting.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kieronoldham, for the generous feedback. Words like those seldom add anything. Where it is possible to use shorter words and sentences without changing the meaning, we should do so. I look forward to working with you in the future; I do occasionally write articles myself, but my big strength is in improving the work of others. --John (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So John, the word Nazi now, already? The words "however" and "nonetheless" are perfectly useful and necessary words in the right place!! We do occasionally want to join sentences together in that particular way, don't we? Especially if we are blessed with a "really big strength", surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

These words have their place of course, and I use them myself. It's my opinion that they are almost never an asset to an article, however. WP:EDITORIAL is the relevant guideline. Can you think of any of the recent changes Kieronoldham is thanking me for that left an article poorer? You can add "additionally" (instead of "and"), "moreover" and "notably" to the list. --John (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I like "however" or "nonetheless" and moreover, quite notably I think, I like additionally. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I like all words. My current word of the week is moiety. But as I said, less is more and articles read a lot better when we can remove or replace say 10% of the words and leave the meaning intact. --John (]) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Kieron, your big strength must be coping with this severe advice. I'm sure all of your improvements are indeed just fine! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC) ...and John, you know how to take my advice.

Oh of course, I really appreciate your humour and your spirit. I thought that bluelink would be more useful than it was. I meant that a good article, in architectural terms, should be more like the clean and minimalist Barcelona Pavilion, and less like the Gothic Reims Cathedral, much as I like Reims Cathedral. An awful lot of my work down the years has consisted of chipping away other people's gargoyles to allow the smooth walls of meaning underneath to be visible. I like it. --John (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, err. I've come over all intellectually comparative. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I like staying out of arguments, John. We all use our strengths on Misplaced Pages. Maybe you can come across as abrupt to some editors in edits? But in having said that, I may come across as abrupt myself when I decide to expand or adjust articles? Martinevans123, I agree with you there's nothing wrong with the words I mentioned - I was just surprised at the number of instances I saw in the selective revision differences. If it had been, say, half a dozen per article adjusted I'd have seen it as maybe being pedantic. Maybe in time I or someone else will reinsert one or two if I, he or she think there are too many semicolons for example and what may be seemed a more sublime congealing of structure. It is my tailored style of writing (and I've seen compromises from John with me, too). If you want to reinsert a few sections of text where you feel appropriate, be my guest "Additionally" is, in many instances,to me, more encyclopedic than "and" in the context of trial evidence presentation or the compilation of structuring factors in a manhunt etc. "Notably" would - to my mind should - be better used than removed from an article in instances where for example, particular emphasis in a piece of crucial evidence which overshadows or will overshadow circumstantial evidence to be presented at trial? All our intentions are for the better, but, consensus governs. Regards to you both. --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. John I'm game for a prose list on there if that will satisfy you (Birmingham Pub Bombings). Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to be civil with you, John (Or User This is Paul?). You have no conclusive, definitive policy to support removal - otherwise I'd abide (as I said on the Teahouse discussion last year). I'll add more references if you wish, but here's a good compromise: IF you can find a reputable, concise list - add it to the External Links, then feel free to remove it. Perhaps I should add User Bastun's enticement of removing the Bloody Sunday casualty list 1st, but I won't.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:This is Paul? --John (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

And George and Ringo are going to feel a bit left out. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We did write so many great songs back in the day, but I still think my name should appear first on the credits...Seriously though...sock puppetry...is this guy having a laugh or what? This is Paul (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think John is. But I have to admit, I am. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC) (I see that Kieron has now thought better of that slip and seems to be editing in good faith). I sure am. Lol--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Good. User:Kieronoldham, good Wikiquette dictates using strikethrough rather than deleting your comment as you did here. Would you mind doing that for me? Also, what did you mean by your edit summary No accusation; just you seem to both hover over the same political pages? Which political pages would that be? --John (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There you go. We're both providing good entertainment for MartinEvans123 here. Seriously though, I know the procedure for sock puppetry and had I been serious it'd have been reported without notification. You and the user I mentioned both give very similar explanations for your edits, and you've both contributed to articles like the Killing of Jo Cox, Jo Cox, and articles like the 2016 U.K. Referendum articles/withdrawal from the E.U. I was trying to use humour to placate frustration. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I see, Kez. Well, thank you for explaining that it was a joke to accuse me of sockpuppetry. I'm not actually all that frustrated, as I have 180,959 edits to 85,189 pages over my 10 years here, and I am not all that conscious of "hanging about" any particular area. I am also not all that invested in the Birmingham bombing article; I'd just rather it wasn't filled with crap. It isn't a very good article, and it perhaps should be. But it's no big deal to me. Is it to you? I am sure Martin finds the whole thing hilarious, as you say. --John (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been active on here for around eight years, and over the years, I've seen your contributions regularly on articles of various natures. I think that article is actually well-referenced and informative, but am aware of potential personal bias there, as I've largely populated it to the level it's currently at. Like I said before, we all use our strengths. Have a good weekend. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Beware, Kez, I often try and use "humour to placate frustration" and I often have to suffer the backlash from some humourless and borish policy-wonk (no offense intended John). I once accused an editor of sockpuppetry and he found it about as funny as a red hot poker up the arse. I'm glad to see that John is more reasonable. I hope you two can now truly bury the hatchet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Over my dead body. We'll just havesee how things go, though. "However", "nonetheless", "formally", this editor is at a stalemate. Have a good weekend, too, Martin.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice video. One of his finest works, though I prefer "How Do You Sleep?" --John (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

Hi there.

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

done with Higham

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

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

If that's a neutral article I'm Arnold Palmer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Your removal

Sorry John, but you know it is not right for User:Collect to claim that he brought Cary Grant to GA status. It's wrong and a clear lie. 15 edits, all negative ones, and he did his best to get it delisted and hamper progress. If you can't at least stand up here and confront Collect over this and kindly ask him to take it down then you're clearly not acting in a neutral fashion here and acting as if you're his protector. Frankly I have no idea why the likes of you and Eric respect Collect, to me he comes across as a bumbling idiot who produces no content and hangs about the site like a bad smell moaning about sources. I see no redeeming qualities in him whatsoever, what am I missing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

officially "shamed" too damn much

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

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

Running to the admin buddy again.. I have no desire to "stalk" or "harass" you Collect, believe me I have better things to do. I just strongly suggest you change your approach towards dealing with sourcing and editors who produce good content here and start showing people a bit more respect. You most certainly harassed me over the Cary Grant article and when I was in the middle of writing it all you were doing is trying to get a source blacklisted at the RS noticeboard. I didn't add the claim on Ellis Island, that was there long before I wrote it and would have been removed before GAR. It is pretty vital to mention Montgomery Clift's most notable roles in the lede, so complete removal of text is not always a good thing in cleanup, far better to rewrite in our own words if important... There are some deep flaws in your own editing at times, that Higham aticle in particular. So for all you complain about sources, if articles are not neutral and are poorly sourced it seems a little hypocritical don't you think to act like an authority around here? Who has edit counteritis? I most certainly don't. In fact for a while I refused to be named on the editors by edit count out of embarrassment at having so many edits here. High article edit counts in my case equates to hard work, something which you don't appear to be capable of. Perhaps if your "friends" here were more honest with you about your articles and behaviour at times you'd improve. Can't see that happening as people are afraid to question or challenge you Collect for some reason.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit warring of an editor you warned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John, after this discussion last week you warned the editor in question about edit warring. The continue to use edit warring as a tool to include their changes to the article in question. Today they made some image changes to the article. I made a partial revert, particularly of one image. They put it back in twice, the second time telling me to Stop edit warring. During this time they have not opened a talkpage discussion. They are additionally restoring Copyvios while telling me to use the talkpage.

I am unsure where to go with this editor. I have not opened a talkpage discussion on this latest image dispute, but that is because I did so in an exactly equivalent situation just yesterday, here, where I had an image change reverted and brought it to the talkpage. This editor is happy to warn others not to edit war, and tell them not to revert, all while doing this regularly themselves. They call edits whose POV they disagree with vandalism, and will stifle discussion by declaring them finished when it suits them, while at the same time strongly asserting discussions can be reopened.

I was considering opening a new AN3 report, but given you closed the last one I thought I'd ask your opinion first. Best, CMD (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are removing content calling it Copyvio but it is not, and removing 1 200+ bytes, I am telling you to prove that they are copyvio because I didn't find them like that. You biased editor and if I try to check you "contribution" and reverts doesn't make me bad editor. I am checking your POV push.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and it is clear I am the only one who tries to defend articles about Georgia from users like you and the only solution for you is to call me editwarer and to achieve my block. I can prove that you are biased.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

When you are making good edits I even thank you for that and you know that but when you try to change some sensitive materials according your POV and it is not clearly defined, sorry but I won't look at it calmly.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that I am in controversy not everywhere where I edit but about some sensitive topics and not about my contributions but about other users edits who try to distort (or hide) some important materials about Georgia.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Easily found copyvio examples:

The text is sufficiently different in some areas, but in others it could hardly be closer paraphrased. Further, of the changes that were made, it seems they mainly were to either 1) add dates, which doesn't do much to reduce copyvio, and 2) slant it to make Georgia look good or Russia/South Ossetia look bad (eg. "killed a half-dozen South Ossetians"->"assaulted the South Ossetian militiamen"). CMD (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we can work about those issues together, remember I won't be against those changes that are really according wiki policies but won't leave two meanings. --g. balaxaZe★ 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also I think it will be good to call admins for help. Since these issues are always sensitive and need more attention. --g. balaxaZe★ 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Where texts are different they should remain, but where they can be closer paraphrased you have enough knowledge of the language to do that without any effort instead of removing it. Admit this.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

How did you miss those sentences when you checked for Copyvio? As for "Admit this", I made an actual edit to that effect. CMD (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I'll remind you have changed (removed) more sentences that these few.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Before your edits:
At around 19:00 on 7 August 2008, Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili announced a unilateral ceasefire and no-response order. However, Ossetian separatists intensified their attacks on Georgian villages located in the South Ossetian conflict zone. Georgian troops returned fire and advanced towards the capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali

After your edits:
On 7 August 2008, Georgian forces began shelling the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali; this was followed, on 8 August 2008, by an advance of Georgian Army infantry, tanks, and police commandos into South Ossetia

Do you see differences in meanings of the sections? --g. balaxaZe★ 12:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits can be compared easy — Before edits ►; after edits ►. There are more changes than copyvio. --g. balaxaZe★ 12:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I do see the differences. Are also concerned about the differences in meaning that the edit adding the copyvio brought about? CMD (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

After archive

Because of users like you (plural) wikipedia always will stay biased underdeveloped only imitative "encyclopedia" and those voices never disappear which say never trust Misplaced Pages au revoir wikiyleebo.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)