Hi John B123. Thank your for reviewing my articles. Could I ask for your input on a discussion on the Birkenhead Built-up area. An contributed user is concerned about the confusion and if all the articles I made are necessary. They seem concerned by just that article. Could you please take a moment to comment on the talk page and see what you think. Cheers RailwayJG (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not an improvement what? they are not sex worker that why i remove it (violation of policies or guidelines) · As discussed in the deletion request, "BLP violation - calling identifiable people prostitutes with no substantiation". or because of my grammar? Lalalulilalia (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: also can you take a look at this page Child prostitution in ThailandWhen the Asian financial crisis began in 1997, it made Thai currency (also known as the "Baht") lose significant value, making Thailand an even cheaper destination for sex tourists and, therefore, one of the most-visited countries of South East Asia.[8] The Thailand government spent millions of baht to promote sexual tourism in Thailand,[9] claiming thing like this with bad source atleast find better source when i click on the source it downloading file Lalalulilalia (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lalalulilalia: Most of those articles don't have a lead image so I assume somebody has added the map to add graphics to the page. Most of the Asian Prostitution in ... articles don't have the map. As I said before, the rest of Asia is irrelevant to the article. --John B123 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi onel5969 thanks for the heads up. I disagree with the comments left on your talk page. The Taxon identifiers confirm the plants exist and being respected sources, show notability is met. They may or may not verify any other information in the article. To me this is no different to an article having a list of references at the end rather than inline citations. Following the same logic, we could delete all 857 references from Donald Trump as it has multiple sources in the authority control.
nobody will ever improve these stubs because of a tag - that could be said about a lot of the tags we add as part of NPP. I don't see why we should treat plant articles any differently to other articles. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John B123, I agree that this is no different than an article having a list of refs without footnotes, but that doesn't negate the fact that they are indeed refs. If the editor had created footnotes for the refs in taxon bar, it would include at least 6 other reliable sources, so therefore the single ref tag doesn't apply. Neither does the more refs tag apply, since everything in the article is referenced. I don't think notability can be invoked either, due to the gazetteer aspect of WP. That being said, these are some of the most aggravating stubs I come across, and have constant issues. I just don't think one-source is one of them. But as always, thanks for everything you do on WP, especially at NPP, don't know what we'd do without you. Onel5969TT me04:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi onel5969, whilst I don't totally agree, for consistency I won't tag the articles if they have a taxon bar. Another thing I have found annoying lately is a couple of editors creating very short stubs with {{expand language}} tags. As written, the stubs don't meet notability requirements, but when you look at the full foreign language articles there is no doubt about notability. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, items listed in the taxonbar are not considered direct references / sources on Wikipedia articles. Abductive has been mistaken about this in the past. Removing the one source template is incorrect. —Hyperik⌜talk⌟14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperik, do you have a link to a discussion regarding that outcome? I'm not trying to defend Abductive in any sense, but just using logic: if you go to any article which has a hyperlink to a source, and you click on the link, it brings up that source. Similarly, if you click on the link in the taxonbar, it brings up the source. Now, that would classify it as a source, but not necessarily a reference? The tag is for a single source, which is different than the "more references" tag. I don't think the more references tag would be appropriate either, since all the info in the article is verifiable through the single references. I don't know if this is worrisome enough to open a formal RfC, but it would be nice if NPP reviewers were consistent in the application. Thoughts? Onel5969TT me16:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a short discussion here. Also, an article can have multiple references that come from the same source. Plants of the World Online is pretty good, but I send them emails of errata pretty regularly, so encouraging more than one source is a good idea. (That said, I'd rather none of these one-sentence plant stubs exist at all; see my recent Talk archives.) —Hyperik⌜talk⌟17:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear John B123, a page I know is being repeatedly vandalised by the same IP address.
On the U.S. Army Esports wiki,[1] five editors (including myself) are having to repeatedly undo vandalism by the same I.P.
Is there something either you or I can do to stop this address from editing on wikipedia? I only ask because I'm very inexperienced with this scenario. BulgeUwU (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Got another article today. Submitting for your review.
If you could also help move it to replace the redirect page, that would be great. Imcdc (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JohnB123, I understand where you are coming from with the page discussion. The problem is that we came across the article and noticed the discussion was mostly (but not entirely) baseless and didn't garner much response. I didn't reopen the article out of no where, I opened a deletion revision section here: [2]. The page's deletion discussion also saw less responses than the deletion revision (which saw an anonymous restoration vote). While I understand all opinions matter including yours (if you feel article should be deleted), you may feel free to object the restoration decision and provide your feedback on the page.
Hello, John B123! How to move a page Ivan Solomonovich Beritashvili to ivane beritashvili ? The page could not be moved... In fact, correct name is Ivane Beritashvili. - OTOGIMessages18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting you to visit User talk:Bookku#Black Sea climate and ecology where the question of copyright has been already discussed between another user Mccapra & me. Pl. let we know if you have any different or additional point than which were discussed between Mccapra and me and if you are not satisfied.
Dear John, thank you so much for your help and the work you do here on Wikipedia. I was wondering whether the Mala Scena Theater has enough references now and is ready to have the tag removed? Also, I have many unreviewed articles and I know you have a lot of work to do, but could you review the articles: Sisterella, Luka Juričić (actor) and Lisa Hunt? I had to make a lot of research and work for those (to prove notability). Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Footwiks, I've moved the article back to mainspace as you have added content and references. Normally drafts don't get reviewed until you press the "Submit for review" button. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Baratiiman, I don't have the necessary permissions to see the data for investigating sockpuppets. You can post your concerns at WP:SPI where those more able to investigate will look into it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Donnchad mac Cellaig
Hi John B,
The page on Donnchad mac Cellaig should not be deleted because the text which it uses is over 100 years old and is in the Public Domain. While it contains a chunk of text from a book, that book is 'History and Antiquities of the Diocese of Ossory, Vol. 1' published in 1905 by William Carrigan.
Please do not delete it, as there is no copyright violation.
I noticed you had earlier added the the template "Need additional citations" for the page Muso Kunda Museum of Women, Mali.
I have since added many references. If you find my improvements meet your peer review of reference adequacy, please consider removing the template "Need additional citations". Malian news sources are also limited given the instability. Thanks for dropping by the article! Best Arunram (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reviewing the page so fast. Grateful as ever. I do not understand how to get an authority control working. How does a dummy edit activate it? --MerielGJones (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MerielGJones, {{authority control}} draws its data from Wikidata. For this to happen there needs to be identifiers on the wikidata page and the Wikidata page has to be linked to the WP article. Gail Davey wasn't previously linked to on Wikidata, so I added the link.[3] The reciprocal link on the WP article is only made when the page is saved, hence the dummy edit. ie you need to add the link on wikidata before adding {{authority control}} to the page. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MerielGJones: I think the process is automated to a degree but it would be difficult to have it fully automated, for example when there are multiple people with the same name. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you delved back to this fuller version before the templating. I ran the tool (probably a few years back, might be on the old computer) which concluded no copyvio, but didn't get around to dealing with it; now the source is log-in only. Written by a P&C employee who left in 1974! rgds --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rocknrollmancer. The full text of the Telegraph Obituary is archived at archive.today.[4]. Running Earwigs Copyvio on the version of the page you linked to and the archived Telegraph article[5] shows minimal copyvio. I don't see why the deleted content can't be reinstated, possibly with some slight changes of wording. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Muchas, didn't think to check archive (normally I look at Wayback) as I was watching MotoGP qualifying at the time (well, the smaller classes, casually) then closed the laptop for the big bruisers! Interesting to see them trying (and mostly failing) to compress the front suspension for launch control setting. Then been shopping - oh, excitement. Luckily for us the Pickrell permalink is there - I made a mistake in not paraphrasing some prose when rough-drafting a bio recently and inadvertently uploaded it. The admin expunged it all from view but I have the draft saved to a cloud so I know what's not there in the WP version - must get around to rectifying it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I normally look at Wayback too, but there wasn't a full copy. Not only have we got MotoGP this weekend but F1 as well. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Thank you so much for your review and post on the Albany Rollers article. In regards to the linkrot, I've found the reFill tool (https://refill.toolforge.org/ng/) is currently not operating and has been without repair about a week. It seems that it us unsupported. I have tried User:Citation bot as well without success. I've also tried the others on the list, without success. Are there any acceptable reference tools that are working that you know of? With reFill down, I know there is a back log of articles needing attention beyond my own, with other contributors seeking assistance as well. Thanks for your work on wikipedia.Skilgis1900 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skilgis1900, none of tools that fill bare refs on a page are working at the moment. Citation bot is for tidying up existing citations rather than creating them. I've filled most of the references in on the article with RefToolbar. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You John. I greatly appreciate the update on the bare references situation and your efforts! I hope the situation improves, it is quite essential for the growth of wikipedia articles. Thanks again for all your good work on wikipedia!!Skilgis1900 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A page I edited and you reviewed and approved was moved to draft by GSS
Hi John,
I edited the page of Gia Merlo and you reviewed it and approved it. GSS later moved it to draft claiming that I am receiving compensation for my edits and am therefore in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please note that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. I also told the same to GSS but he refuses to move the page back to main. Is there anything you can do? I am just helping out here. I do wikipedia edits only occasionally and most definitely not for money. I would appreciate your help. RespectfullyInterfever (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Interfever: It's better if you follow the Wikipedia policies on paid editing rather than asking users to help you. As I said on my talk page there is pretty clear evidence that you were hired and I have shared the details with the concerned. GSS💬13:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea which evidence you are talking about. I did not receive any money for my edits. It is absurd that you ask me to disclose something that is simply not true! Dr. Gia Merlo is as deserving of having a Wikipedia article about her work as any other physician and author currently listed on Wikipedia. Respectfully
is wrong Lalalulilalia (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
