|
You were kind enough to fix up a few issues with this article earlier today, which has emboldened me to ask for a favour.
When I opened the GA review a few days ago the article looked like this, and to be honest I didn't hold out much hope for it. In fact I almost failed it on the spot, but I'm glad I didn't, as the nominator buckled down and produced the goods. My slight worry now though is that I may in the process have done so much on the article myself that my judgement has become clouded; I'm not asking you to do a second GA review or anything like that, just for your impression of the current state of the article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, let me take a look. --John (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks John, I've gone ahead and listed it now. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, any time. --John (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What did you revert my edit for?
Its a proven fact that Ulster is a unionist name for Northern Ireland , Why does it say on that page Mary_McAleese She is the first president to come from Northern Ireland and the province of Ulster; They roughly mean the same thing , it would of been better to say the United Kingdom or just leave it at N.I or overseas. Goldblooded (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so. Check the definitions of Ulster and Northern Ireland, they are not coterminous, even if a lazy minority have used them that way. --John (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose, But still it would be easier to just put shes the only president from the UK. Goldblooded (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Easier, but less accurate. Geographical names can be enormously important on Irish articles and it's best not to mess with them if they are accurate, NPOV and sourced. --John (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for the good work here at Wikipedia. Since my past blocks concerning edit warring i have taken the lesson and do not repeatedly revert especially when the topic is under discussion on the talk page. Unfortunately other did not learn their lesson and keep disrupting WP through edit warring and even WP:POINT. May i ask you to have a look at Talk:Naser_Jason_Abdo#Edit warring. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Iqinn been been wikihouding the hell out of me and claiming everything I do is a crime against humanity in a ham-handed attempt to get me blocked for... well... anything. His wikette alert fell a little flat so you are plan B. V7-sport (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely wrong and that nobody at Wikiquette did address the long list of misbehavior you had already shown just before the edit warring makes it even worst. I brought it there to solve the dispute nothing else. Unfortunately you showed even stronger disruptive behavior after that and started edit warring and disrupted the discussion WP:POINT as listed here Talk:Naser_Jason_Abdo#Edit warring. You were edit warring and you were disrupting Wikipedia WP:POINT. Do not falsely blame other for your misbehavior. I have learned my lesson but you did not. IQinn (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am looking at the disagreement you have been having. I note that you have been in dispute about a See also section on Naser Jason Abdo. It would be best to try to seek other opinions than to continue your disagreement. Most times when two people are talking past each other as you have been doing, it's better to disengage after two or three comments and ask for other opinions. I will continue to look at your disagreement and try to come up with more suggestions. --John (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other people got already involved but that did not stop him from edit warring and disrupting per WP:POINT and that is the issue here. IQinn (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. I have commented in talk and edited the article, as I find I agree with you and Connolley on this issue. Please try to disagree more productively or at least more concisely in future. --John (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So "see also" sections are now not allowed? Where is this Policy? What were linked were other acts of terrorism/jihad committed by Americans, it makes perfect sense to link them. V7-sport (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you John, i think that is very good advice. IQinn (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have re read WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP, the rationale for removing the "see also" section. I honestly can't find justification for removing it. (I note that they both have "see also" sections.) If you can point out the relevant passage I would appreciate it. V7-sport (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant section of BLP is "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". By making this link between the living subject (who has not been convicted of any crime), and these other incidents, without giving a reliable source which also makes the connection, you were in flagrant breach of WP:BLP. Even were such sources to be found, it would still take a talkpage consensus for the material to be included. As WP:SEEALSO points out, we can only use material in a See also section that could be included in the article but for considerations of space. As this material is unreferenced negative material on a BLP, it clearly could not. The COATRACK comes in because including this material could give the impression that all these incidents are part of a larger conspiracy, something which again no evidence has been supplied to support. I hope that helps you see why we cannot use the material you wished to include. --John (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The relevant section of BLP is "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"."
- These were links to other articles. If there is a problem with their sourcing that could have been addressed.
- "By making this link between the living subject (who has not been convicted of any crime),
- So if he were to have been given due process, then a see also section wold be OK?
- and these other incidents, without giving a reliable source which also makes the connection, you were in flagrant breach of WP:BLP."
- The connection is that they were Americans involved in islamic terrorism.
- As WP:SEEALSO points out, we can only use material in a See also section that could be included in the article
- What it says is "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one"
- this material could give the impression that all these incidents are part of a larger conspiracy, something which again no evidence has been supplied to support."
- Is that to say there hasn't been a problem with islamic terrorism?
- I don't want to beat this into the ground but the implications of your decision are that any editor can pretty much remove a see also link from an article with someone who is alive in it. V7-sport (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a baseless speculation, right. Here's a thought experiment for you. Someone adds to the See also section on our George W. Bush article the following topics as links: Draft dodger, War criminal, Alcoholism. Do you think that would be ok? If not, why not? --John (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There might be some presumptions going on there about what I would take issue with that aren't quite accurate, John. To be clear, if there were a list of "self proclaimed alcoholics" or "politicians who stayed in the national guard through the Vietnam war" I wouldn't take issue with that as it's verifiable and accurate. It wouldn't be baseless speculation as it would be easily verified by reliable sources. I don't think what I had posted was the equivalent to Draft dodger, War criminal etc.
- Looking forward and to preempt any mass deletions, would a finding of guilt or innocence through due process change this? Would it be correct remove see alsos from artcles like the Haditha massacre Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre Deh Bala wedding party bombing etc, since there has been no finding of guilt and the incidents all involve living people?V7-sport (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, see, it is an analogy and not a like-for-like comparison, but I would oppose those See alsos on the GWB article because I think if anything they should be linked in the article body, with sources, and with the consensus of the community that they fulfill BLP and NPOV. If they cannot, there is no way they should be See alsos. It's all too easy by adding See alsos to create aspersions; I think I once took off a link to Vidkun Quisling from some page where someone wanted to create the impression that the person was a traitor or collaborator. Far better than adding See alsos would be to find a decent source that explicitly compares the events you wish to add to the subject of the article, and argue in talk for its inclusion in the main body of the article. I think this is the direction you should go with it. A category is another viable possibility which has already been raised. --John (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, just to be sure I have my mind right going forward see alsos are to be avoided, especially if they involve living people per WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK and WP:SEEALSO, correct. What's our position on templates like this and this? V7-sport (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think of See alsos like external links. External links are only to be added where they could in future be used to reference material in the article. The EL section is thus a kind of holding pen for references. Similarly, the See also section should only be for internal links that could later be included in the body of the article. --John (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So If I were to create a template like Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror of American islamists who have been charged with acts of terrorism that would be fine. V7-sport (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that would not be fine. That would breach NPOV and probably WP:POINT as well, in my opinion. --John (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you see how a guy could get the idea that things aren't being enforced evenly? V7-sport (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. It's a consequence of being in a collaborative project where the product and the consensus-based understandings we come to on it take precedence over any individual editor's feelings. Hell, I've been here over 5 years, am an admin, yet I lose arguments all the time. Sometimes it's a long game, and sometimes we just have to accept that we are in a minority. There are always central venues you can go to to evaluate and shape consensus as well. --John (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I think that your interpretation of the rules in this case is pretty stringent, however if those are the parameters in which we are to operate then I will edit accordingly. I think it's only right that the rules be evenly applied. There is perceived "consensus" on something until it's challenged and not a lot of editors challenge the bull that makes it up here because they are met with endless tendentious editing (in this case from Mullah Rain Man) that is geared to ensure that when they misrepresent what a source says, post fringe material or remove something that they don't want to be made aware of people just walk away. Something like this... or this and literally dozens of other instances I could rattle off would appear to have "consensus" but are obviously not in keeping with the policies as outlined. What's the point of having policies if they are only enforced with the non squeaky wheels?V7-sport (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point. As the metaphor "squeaky wheel" implies, it is stressful to take the lead on changing things. If there's a specific problem with one of the instances you've named, tell me what it is and if I agree I will help you change it. --John (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that John. The links that I provided (as well as many of the links they link to) don't conform to the standards as outlined here for see also sections and the template is chock full of OR. I'll look into it in the coming week and if the squeaking gets shrill I'll come knocking. Fair enough? V7-sport (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, it is always a pleasure to see you. --John (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks- Same here. V7-sport (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your 31 hour block of 31.47.14.109 the other day (User_talk:31.47.14.109#August_2011) but they didn't seem to get the message. They have just
repeated the BLPCAT violation at Bashar al-Assad. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reblocked. --John (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. --John (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. I noticed that you just made a clean-up edit at Sylvia Young Theatre School and since you're in the area, I'd like to ask your advice about the recent discussion on the talk page: Talk:Sylvia Young Theatre School#List of names. Do you have an opinion on how the list of unreferenced names should be handled? GFHandel ♬ 04:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you and have so commented at talk. --John (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John (again). An anonymous editor is continually adding a name into the alumni list. What can be done to stop this vandalism? I guess either block the IP or semi-protect the page? Is there something you can do, or should I take this up somewhere else? GFHandel ♬ 02:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess something also needs to be done about Talk:Sean_Borg? GFHandel ♬ 03:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Semi-protected two weeks and deleted, respectively. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for acting so quickly. GFHandel ♬ 03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very welcome. --John (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. You recently expressed an interest in ensuring that Romani-related articles are written to the best standards. There is currently a discussion between myself and just one other editor at the above page. I think some fundamental policy issues are involved and would appreciate any outside views there, from you and/or whoever else might be watching this page. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will have a look. --John (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I noticed you recently banned a vandalism only account which had edited this article. Short Stack do seem to polarise opinion, and as their articles attract a large amount of vandalism; I was wondering if some sort of article protection would be useful? The band have also attracted a single purpose account User:John Cadaver, whoes edits are very questionable.
I'm an independent observer of the Short Stack article - know nothing about the band, haven't heard their music, and would probably hate it if I did! memphisto 11:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed the article was rather crufty. I took a quick hack and will return to tighten it further. Thanks, --John (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, hope you're well this evening. Noticed you reverted my (admittedly bold) change on the George Best article with an edit summary of "we're not Britannica, thank goodness". I was always under the impression Britannica was considered a reliable source – it's certainly being used to confirm a number of nationalities/ethnicities across Wikipedia – but it appears you're not convinced. Could you elaborate? Best, JonChappleTalk 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Britannica is, like Wikipedia itself, a tertiary source, as it distills material from secondary sources like newspapers, magazines and books. Primary sources would be things like birth records and personal websites etc. We should source our material from secondary sources predominantly. Primary sources may occasionally be used for non-controversial matters of fact. Other tertiary sources like Britannica may be indicative but we certainly aren't bound to follow their lead. For a footballer who has played for Northern Ireland, it seems misleading to call him a British footballer, especially given the sensitivities around the topic of Irish nationality. I hope this makes it clear why I undid your edit, well-intentioned as I accept it was. Incidentally, it is morning where I am. --John (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your response. I hope you're having a good morning, then! ;) You're right that Irish, and especially Northern Irish, nationality can be a complex thing, but it just looks ridiculous, to me at least, to completely skirt around the matter; especially when he's played for the Northern Irish team. I'll see what else I can find. Thanks again. 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- It appears my signature has disappeared. How odd! Let's try again. JonChappleTalk 18:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your spirit of compromise. Let's think some more and discuss at article talk towards a solution. Incidentally, this may be of interest to you. --John (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, I'm all-too-familiar with that essay! :) JonChappleTalk 20:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am sorry if that comes across as patronizing then. It wasn't intended so. --John (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to stop by and thank you for posting this. I revise my writing heavily, it takes forever, and the first drafts are always just that - drafts. Simply looking for instances of "however" in a long page and fixing, is a good way to rewrite in small chunks. It's a new trick! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note Truthkeeper88. It's always good to have one's efforts recognized. We should all give out more barnstars or even just leave nice notes like the one you left. Take care, --John (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like an informal competition, 24 is the record to beat. Barnstar or a beer for the winner? --John (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in semi-holiday mode and popping in and out at the moment - did you find 24 on the first FAC you looked at? I'm too lazy to look at contribs at the moment. Anyway, yeah let's have a competition - either barnstar or beer is fine. I foresee a "oppose per the however rule" popping up at FAC! Anyway, I think Malleus brings up a good point - I've opposed on prose and sometimes the reactions are enough to drive me from reviewing, which is what he's running into. You should review more - FAC always needs reviewers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, saw you were recently online. If you still are, can you please revdel this[1] whole page? I've already blanked it. An anon (2nd time) is outing another, this time with links to their Facebook profile[2]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --John (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much thanks! Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very welcome. --John (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! What did I do to deserve that? --John (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw, thank you. I was feeling thirsty so that will come in handy. --John (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your copyediting here. I really do appreciate it. I saw how many "however"s you removed... guess I should start watching for that when I write! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all, it is a fascinating article, thank you for writing it. --John (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I request that you unprotect the S&P talk page. See Talk:Standard & Poor's#Page protection completely blocks the anon editor (and I agree with you about threading, so let's keep the discussion there). JamesMLane t c 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --John (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your prompt action! JamesMLane t c 20:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. --John (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I would be interested to hear your opinion about this. Best Mick gold (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied in article talk. --John (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry John but what I did that time? Answer in my page please--77.49.154.248 (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK about my edits but why you dleted the list of former members which was referenced?--77.49.154.248 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
