:It's a little laborious, but one of the features (see bottom left in [[:File:Awbscreenshot.jpg|this screenshot]]) shows multiple wikilinks which you can then delink by repeatedly clicking and pressing "delink selection". --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:It's a little laborious, but one of the features (see bottom left in [[:File:Awbscreenshot.jpg|this screenshot]]) shows multiple wikilinks which you can then delink by repeatedly clicking and pressing "delink selection". --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::Awesome, thanks. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::Awesome, thanks. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
== You are a sad, miserable little man John. ==
Why the hell are you trying to get into an edit war with me? Get a LIFE. '''It is you that are wrong.''' You are the one that doesn't get what Wikipedia is about. Clown. Leave me and my edits the HELL ALONE!!!!!!!!!
Okay I'll admit that at times before I have come across some people, trolls on Wikipedia that were anal, and pedantic, and stupid, but YOU... I have NEVER seen anyone like you just taking all of my things out of it because I didn't cite them? You're out of your mind!!!!
Get a half a clue about wikipedia first. MOST things don't have citations.
[[User:Anonywiki|Anonywiki]] ([[User talk:Anonywiki|talk]]) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:59, 27 September 2010
A Note on threading:
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
Hi John. I am not really familiar with Wikipedia so I hope that I'm doing
the right thing putting my questions here. Having seen the comments which
you put in January, I now understand what you were saying. So I entirely
accept them, will abide by them in future and have no questions about them.
My enquiry relates to the page on Wikipedia. I apologise if it
is rather long. (If this is not the appropriate place for it, please could
you transfer it to the appropriate place and notify me.)
I am puzzled by a number of things arising from this. First, Jed Orianus
quotes "Xxanthippe" who he says is an "Admin." I couldn't find the name
Xxanthippe when I searched "Wikipedia admin" - so are you able to explain this,
please.
Xanthippe removed a link to my website which I inserted on 15 January. I had
not understood this was not allowed, so I do not question this removal.. But
a subsequent link which I inserted, was a new medical update on Carroll's
neurological condition, referenced my own 2010 biography "The Mystery of
Lewis Carroll." This is authoritative new information. Jed Orianus says
Xxanthippe removed this - I cannot see where, but Jed says he has reinserted it
for me because I am not alllowed to do it myself as it would count as self
promotion. I only cited my biography because it needs a citation and I
cannot see why this entry constitutes "self promotion"
I have more questions about the page in general, but I feel this is best to
deal with one issue at a time. I am sorry if I have misunderstood anything
up until now. It is quite complicated! I have now made up my mind to get
my head around Wikipedia as much as I can so I hope you can help in
answering the above for starters.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennywoolf (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jenny. You should not add links or references to which you are affiliated like this. --John (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. That's clearer now. Is there anything else EXCEPT material relating to myself that needs to be discussed on the article's talk page?
Anything which you think might be controversial should be discussed in talk first. If in doubt, discuss. --John (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coin Links
John, why did you remove all of my resource external links for US coins? Are you a coin collector and did you know that these were some of the best non-commercial highly-specific and relevant resources I've ever seen out of a single numismatic site online?
Please reconsider putting these back. You recommended talking about them in the discussion talk page, but many of these pages don't have anyone discussing the topic. I would be happy to discuss these resources as long as there are people to discuss it with. If you are into numismatics, view the links yourself and you will see how awesome this site really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickland (talk • contribs) 08:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are quite the reference addict: Returning a "more references needed" tag to a small section that has 11 of them and is lacking references for just two TV shows! Seems overkill to me ... Still, your earlier tag did prod me into getting those 11 references, which should have been done ages ago. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB and the like are evidence that something existed; for inclusion in a list we need better sources. Thanks for the work you have done but if no better sources can be found I'd say this material will have to be removed. --John (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PhanuelB
Predictably, your polite notice on his talkpage was met with another rant attacking myself and MLauba again and containing a number of complete untruths. Black Kite (t)(c) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have blocked indef and taken the block to AN/I for review. --John (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you just blocked PhanuelB, an legit sockpuppet of another account (please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja/Archive) it might be warranted (IMO) to contact the SPI checkuser/admin Amalthea who handled the case to see if there is any other policy violation since then.TMCk (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't block for sockpuppetry but for continual and long-term disruptive and combative editing and failure to accept my offer at his talk. Amalthea is reading the AN/I section where I raised my block for review but I will notify as a courtesy as you suggest. Thank you. --John (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidently Amalthea just posted at ANI and doesn't see any further abuse so you can disregard my above comment.TMCk (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped them a line anyway just in case they did not notice the post at AN/I. --John (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks spam
Hello John, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.
Primarily due to to the excessive block of me more along with some other offenses, User:Tango was desysopped....did you forget that part here...also I vividly recall your efforts to undermine the encyclopedic integrity of several 9/11 articles with repeated insistances of POV pushing conspiracy theories...under the current discretionary sanctions for 9/11 articles, if this behavior of yours was still ongoing, you would have been probably topic banned from them.--MONGO 00:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi MONGO, nice to see you. My point at the COI noticeboard was that you did not have a COI in that situation, but I don't think I agree with your edit summary here to the effect that the report was a waste of time; "outing" yourself as a DHS worker on-site might seem to some to be a COI for sure on 9/11 articles. Not a position I agree with, but not a batshit-crazy proposition either. It's hard for me to see what you were hoping to achieve by making that statement back then. Was it an argument to authority? Oh well, water under the bridge.
Your desysop in 2006 was a result of some 9/11-related incivility and personal attacks, I see on checking, as was your 2008 block which in turn, as you say, played a part in Tango's desysop. What worries and even saddens me (because I know you are a good guy trying to do the right thing) is the apparent lack of learning since in many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner and misusing and threatening to misuse his administrative tools in 2006, to the fiery behavior in 2008 that got you blocked, to your recent tone, for example here. I suppose my question to you would be, in what way do you see such uncivil and non-AGF behavior, sustained over a period of years, after you have been repeatedly sanctioned for it, as an asset to the encyclopedia? Let me note that I broadly support your content stance regarding 9/11, I just don't see how trying to enforce it like this will help anyone.
Please feel free to post diffs of any recent or current "efforts to undermine the encyclopedic integrity of several 9/11 articles with repeated insistances of POV pushing conspiracy theories" that you see me make, so that I can deal with them. If you're talking about the edits I made (I think mainly if not exclusively at the talk page) as a newbie that were such a major topic at my contentious RfA in August 2006, I think I apologized for that four years ago and the community forgave me for my callow mistakes. I didn't properly understand NPOV in my first months here, I guess. I have always invited criticism over the years and tried to learn from my mistakes in this community, however slowly and imperfectly I have implemented that. You, on the other hand, seem depressingly stuck. Hope that my straight talking is of some help to you. Best regards, --John (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that you used to promote conspiracy theories, especially regarding WTC 7...I stated that if you still had this behavior, (which at times was pretty termagent), you'd probably have been topic banned under current arbcom rulings...are you unable to read my comments? You expect me to extend an olive branch and AGF with "editors" that do noting but undermine the integrity of our articles, yet come come after me with repeated attempts to find some way to oust me from 9/11 articles (usually because I'm not sweet enough to them)...articles in which I have helped bring several to FA level and they have done nothing but try to undermine those efforts, just like you used to do...you were an obstacle then, nothing more than that...The NPOV regulations regarding our articles had been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you persisted...and you're right, it almost cost you the silly admin promotion. My recollection is that you were a real pain in the arse on the talkpages but now you've had a chance to read some of the facts that people like myself have written and at least (possibly) in your case, we were able to educate you. I will also remind you that the main reason you got admin your first try is because I went against the tide and voted to support you...I could have presented a massive argument that would have upset it, but unlike the POV warriors promoting CT on 9/11 articles, I'm not a petty asshole...yet you persist in thinking I can't AGF...ridiculous.--MONGO 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to read, thanks. As regards "if you still had this behavior... you'd probably have been topic banned under current arbcom rulings", maybe you've heard the saying "If my mom had balls, she'd be my dad". The meaning of this is that we should focus on the real world rather than hypothetical considerations involving alternate universes.
While I do still appreciate the help you gave me in supporting my RfA back in 2006, I was mainly concerned about your edits in 2010 and how little progress you seem to have made over the years. Civility is not an optional thing; it's one of the five pillars of the project, and we should all probably avoid editing in areas where we are unable to exercise it. Good to hear from you. --John (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bet is you chimed in at the COI noticeboard because the CTers were there. You made admin because I was civil and forgiving...bet on that...read the Rfa again...enough supports popped in and some opposes changed to neutral due to my comment and good faith...you're welcome.--MONGO 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well that's actually an example of the sort of thing I am talking about. I did not chime in at the COI noticeboard as part of some conspiracy (do you seriously believe that?) I saw the notice on your talk and actually went there to support you. But I couldn't help noticing that some of the combative stuff you were doing recently was in the same vein as you were desysopped for and then blocked for years ago. Consistency can be a virtue, but if it is failure to learn from experience, we depend on those who care for us to point it out. Hence my post. --John (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do...I think you are biased and I see now you're underminning Tarage's efforts in places to deal with POV pushers regarding the conspiracy theories. While I never believe in silencing dissent, the ongoing and neverending chatter about 9/11 conspiracy theories on the talk pages associated with these articles makes it nearly impossible for editors to be able to finally discuss how to improve the articles. You're in a position as an admin (and you keep bringing up the admin thing for no other reason than to insult...I DO NOT CARE about being an admin!...never did, never will...get it?) to apply discretionary sanctions to those that have nothing to add but conspiracy theory lunacy...yet instead you sidestep that and seem more worried about whether I am being civil enough to these time wasters...and your opinion is noted as to my level of discourse and I hope you understand that any misuse of your tools or your lofty position to shelter or protect these conspiracy theorists will lead me to file an Rfc on your actions.--MONGO 09:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I hereby agree to abide by the arbcom ruling and will be expecting you to make use of your admin rights to impose discretionary sanctions on all conspiracy theory POV pushers on 9/11 articles...as you are allowed to do so as detailed here.--MONGO 10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edit and went with "Breslau spotted the ships". There's a good argument that this is merely elliptical for "someone on Breslau spotted the ships and informed the captain", but my position is to avoid this kind of ellipsis because of the problem of anthropomorphism. Ascribing human abilities and emotions and actions to ships (and planes and tanks ... in general, any dangerous technology your life depends on) is universal in wartime. I think it's our job writing 100 years later to acknowledge that sentiment in various ways (which is why I'm fine with "she", despite what AP Stylebook says), while carefully avoiding the impression that we share the illusion. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I thought of that as I was doing it, not that I consciously reverted you. Think I have the perfect solution. --John (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the perfect solution. I hate the passive voice. Thanks to you too. --John (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic edits today, thanks. I'm noticing that lately, really good copyeditors like yourself, Finetooth and WereSpielChequers are getting more hands-on with the SHIPS FACs; even Tony1 is speaking approvingly. If we're doing something right, I'd like to know what it is :) I've always been impressed by the prolific SHIPS editors, especially when they let me paw over their articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and you too. Really enjoyed working with you on it. I had no idea you were improving it when I made my first few edits, but we seem to have worked in harmony to effect a really major improvement in the article. I think I still mildly disagree about the need to explain the short version of the ship's name in the lede, but no matter. I have the Van Der Vat source on this ship and might dig it out, but the sourcing really looks quite ok already. Cheers! --John (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to find the right balance. OTOH, we at WP:SHIPS usually prepare articles carefully for FAC ... so there's not a lot to do and we don't get a lot of input, and sometimes no reviews, either. OTOH, if we don't get a chance to copyedit them before FAC, the FAC delegates and some voters get annoyed. If we could get all the copyediting done at our A-class review, WP:SHIPA, that would be ideal ... and SHIPS editors are very willing to help out anyone who helps us out with copyediting. About the ship's name: lawyers have found that if they start referring to "Company X Y Z" as "Company X", just assuming that people will make the connection, it always comes back to bite them; they have to spell it out. I don't want to be as picky as lawyers are, but I don't want to allow room for misinterpretation, either. On the "&" you added today: I'm not sure if that works with WP:&, and FAC culture seems to be even more anti-& than MOS is. But I don't really care. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be ok with the ampersand. WP:& has "Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as The Tom & Jerry Show or AT&T" and the Blohm + Voss article has this as the previous form of the company's name (in English and German). I should probably have left a more descriptive edit summary. I smiled at I don't really care; I am also trying to cultivate more of a WP:DGAF approach to editing here, with mixed success. Good to hear from you. --John (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good argument I think. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, one more thing ... whenever you need it, I'll be happy to copyedit any article for you if you'll copyedit any article at WP:SHIPA that needs it. I explain why I like to make this offer to good copyeditors at WT:SHIPS#Attracting copyeditors. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dank. I replied there. I am really flattered to be identified by you as a "good copyeditor". I am always happy to help on any article without any quid pro quo being necessary. Not to say I won't ask you for help in the future anyway though! --John (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. Since you just did one of Parsecboy's, he's got another one at WP:SHIPA if you want to have a look at it, SMS Deutschland (1904), that will probably head to FAC afterwards, if you want to give it a whack. I've done 20 or so of his, they're pretty straightforward. And please let me know what you'd like me to look at. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything so far on Deutschland looks great, I'll eyeball it again when it's farther along in the review process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, if we don't get a chance to copyedit them before FAC, the FAC delegates and some voters get annoyed. Yep :) We urgently need more non-ship people to get involved in ship articles at FAC, and all help is appreciated. (See Reviewers achieving excellence.) The ship articles dominate FAC, but most independent reviewers won't go near them because they are sometimes dry, jargon-filled, or burdened with excess detail, without telling a compelling story about the boat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Largely agreed, and I think there are fixes, or at least we can push for fixes, do you mind if I copy this to WT:FAC? (Or is there a better forum to get input from reviewers and copyeditors?) - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the encouragement. I will continue working on Deutschland today. Take care, --John (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, there is a thread now at WT:FAC with stats on the categories-- that would be a good place to expand on this. Warfare has the largest increase over the last two years, but too often, those nominators don't help out reviewing other articles, while the lion's share of the work at FAC is carried by a small handful of editors. That could (not sure) be another one of the reasons they don't get reciprocal reviews-- reviewers are overworked, and it's natural for them to help those who help others. (I've posted to both Ships and MilHist about the contribution to the FAC backlog from ship articles, but that doesn't seem to have helped.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimi Hendrix
Can you please revisit this discussion? I've given reasons why I believe it should be kept. I am open to hearing why or how this is WP:UNDUE, as you say maybe I'm not comprehending it. I've been here a year but I can't claim to know everything. I was not joking when I said I'd really like to understand your rationale. I've listed a few sources including fox news that covered this, maybe you'll help me understand what I'm missing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did as you asked. I note that there are now four editors including me arguing against the inclusion of this material and one defending it, yourself. Per WP:CONSENSUS I don't think we should retain it. You should also note that the reputation of tabloid newspapers as reliable sources is pretty low. I personally do not rate a tabloid much above a blog for this type of material. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with the exception of Fox News which I know is not a tabloid which one of the sources are tabloids? I'm not one hundred percent familiar with UK papers and can understand a reasoning if they were all unreliable sources that this was giving things undue weight. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be assuming that anything that is published about Hendrix in a reliable source has to be included in the Hendrix article. If the article were Death of Jimi Hendrix then I might concede that this gossipy tittle-tattle should be included. IMO the death section is already too long (with more than enough extraneous detail) without the addition of further hearsay: he was notable for his musical talent, not his death. The article should just stick to established facts about his death, with a brief mention of alternative theories. Occuli (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Occuli, and this is the prevailing feeling at the article talk as well. Of our policies, it is maybe WP:NPOV that is the hardest to grasp. Hence my change to the article which was reverted (twice) by Hell in a Bucket. --John (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and review again [[1]]I reverted once. We had a open discussion and the removal was not appropriate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've been rather clear and even painfully concise in why I've thought it should be included. You have made vague comments to policies. I think as is there is six lines that say there is or was claims and claims only made about the nature of death. I thought by making a subsection it removed fact from allegations. I'm not adverse ot losing the subsection but some detail at the very least should be included. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am awfully sorry but I don't think I can explain it to you any better than I already have. My "vague comments to policies" such as WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS are the clue you are not getting here. Try asking another admin and maybe they can explain it to you so that you can understand. I don't think I can. The fact that you are the only person arguing to keep this material should also be highly indicative if you are honest with yourself. Good luck. --John (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to your references to wp:undue. If you recall I brought up NPOV in the debate and thought that airing the allegations in a small way was not going to give it undue weight and actually enhanced npov to article. As it is you are correct that consensus does appear to not support what I would choose. Thank you for taking the time to finish the discussion Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Daviestalk 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy
John, I'd be obliged if you could give a good look at this list whenever you can. It's currently at MilHist ACR. It's bound for FLC afterwards and I'd like to make sure that it gets a good copyedit before it gets there. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that would be a pleasure. --John (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: please don't remove pending discussion
John, the topic has been discussed to death. The editor who keeps adding it refuses to address the questions raised on the talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The merge tag? Really? --John (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the merge tag, John, it's about the content that you want merged. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Viriditas. I only added the merge tag. You'll have to explain to me which content you think I want merged, because I haven't expressed an opinion on the matter. --John (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I appreciate you helping out, and normally, this kind of edit would be fine. But in a content dispute like this, it might not be helpful. Something to think about in the future, perhaps? Keep up the good work. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the edits I made before you comment any more? I removed what seemed like an uncited sentence, and then I added a merge tag. I then restored the tag when you removed it. --John (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a failure to communicate. I maintain that adding merge tags for disputed content isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does. Why do you maintain that? --John (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because, if you had bothered to follow the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and on the OR noticeboard you will find that nobody has argued for a merge. So, then, why did you add a merge tag? And if you had followed the associated ANI report on the matter, you would discover that FellGleaming duplicated the content in a disruptive, POINTy manner. Nothing needs merging. The subject is already covered in our article on high-level radioactive waste management, and is completely at odds with FellGleamings POV and our sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just explained that above. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Deep breath) Ok, let's assume that I don't understand why merging the two articles would go against anything that has been said at the various discussions and that I think merging will prevent it from becoming a POV fork. With that in mind, why did you remove the merge tag I added? Was it an accident, or was it because you were opposed to merging the two articles with no prejudice about adding or removing any particular content? If it was the latter, could you please explain your rationale? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding maintenance tags, and I believe I explained this already. I don't understand what you mean by "I think merging will prevent it from becoming a POV fork". It's speculation not adequately reflected in significant sources on the topic, and it also represents an attempt at POV pushing by the editor who added it to two different articles during a content dispute. I'm afraid you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry you don't understand what I am doing here. Please try to assume that I am acting for the best in merging these articles. --John (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you aren't making any sense. Above, you write "I haven't expressed an opinion on the matter", yet you restore the tags and tell me to let the discussion take its course. What merge discussion? And, where? Hopefully, you can see how strange this looks. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is at Talk:Mariana_Trench#Merge_Challenger_Deep_here. You yourself have participated in it. Does that help? I'd be grateful if you could leave the merge tags in place for 7 days, unless there is some special reason not to. --John (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In that case, now that I know specifically what you mean, I support the merge. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you believe it John?
That yours was the last vote in my RfA? That that particular vote ensured the RfA just about kissed the 80% pass mark? That this is the last message in my personal thanks series? :):):) John, thanks for your lovely support vote. It took me so long to reach your page as I had 89 other supporters whom I was kind of personally thanking. So finally, I reach your page, and would wish to communicate to you that your presence was appreciated considerably by me. Thanks again John and have a great day :) Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome for the !vote and I hope you enjoy the poisoned chalice that is adminship. Let me know if there is anything I can help you with. --John (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shucks, ah wuz hopin FG ment featured gurl! :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BilCat (talk • contribs)
No such luck, it's a disruptive POV-pusher. Being an admin isn't all champagne and roses and riding in chauffeur-driven cars, you know. In fact it isn't any of those things, really. --John (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you at least get the t-shirt? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not even. In my time (2006) you got nothing. No t-shirt, no tazer, nothing. --John (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, I've copied your modified note on use of "catholic" categories in BLPs into some other. Basically, in Category:Roman Catholics by nationality, I've done the letter A. It's a bit tedious. Anyway, I would like for you to have a look and tell me if that's OK and if I (we, everyone here) should paste that text into every such category. Another question: is there a more automated way to do something like this, a batch edit maybe? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, the changes were OK? What about automation? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a way of doing that, I'm sorry. --John (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just Sayin'
Don't know you from adam but I thought your gesture on Fell Gleeming's page was rather noteworthy and commendable. Noted and commending. Rgds JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --John (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Marshall
I'm undoing your removal of the various "fair use" images you performed. Similar images are used to illustrate many articles on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair1944 (talk • contribs)
Tell me more please, I just saw that edit summary at List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy. I've been looking for a tool that will help us identify overlinks before FAC, but I don't know what AWB can do. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little laborious, but one of the features (see bottom left in this screenshot) shows multiple wikilinks which you can then delink by repeatedly clicking and pressing "delink selection". --John (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are a sad, miserable little man John.
Why the hell are you trying to get into an edit war with me? Get a LIFE. It is you that are wrong. You are the one that doesn't get what Wikipedia is about. Clown. Leave me and my edits the HELL ALONE!!!!!!!!!
Okay I'll admit that at times before I have come across some people, trolls on Wikipedia that were anal, and pedantic, and stupid, but YOU... I have NEVER seen anyone like you just taking all of my things out of it because I didn't cite them? You're out of your mind!!!!
Get a half a clue about wikipedia first. MOST things don't have citations.
