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
Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the IP who vandalised it. It is the same user as before. If they continue I will semi-protect again but I would rather not unless I have to. Let me know if it continues. Thanks again. --John (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3O
Hi John. I'm not sure whether you intended this to be the response to the 3O request or not, but it looks like a third opinion, and in view of all the goings on at AN3 and SPI, I can't see much point in anyone giving yet another one. So I've removed the request from the WP:3O page. Hope that's OK. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bother, it's a pleasure to help you. Even though, to be honest, I've never taken much interest in the technical side of Wikipedia, and it's a case of me asking the boffins. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there is a 'big push' to update and standardise a lot of the background software. May well be related to this. You could contact User talk:Theopolisme directly and follow up with an e-mail if they don't get back to you in a reasonable time. RashersTierney (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Seeing you commenting at AN/I reminded me that I had meant for some time to thank you for your efforts at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). It still bothers me that it took so long to issue blocks to editors whose behaviour had been creating problems in that area for years, but we certainly do seem to have peace now.
What's fascinating is that the apparently random changes of "soccer" to "football" by seemingly new (and supposedly innocent) IP editors have also dramatically reduced in number since our consensus was achieved. Draw whatever conclusion you like from that.
That's ok, it was fun and satisfying to bring peace to the area. All I did was created a space for discussion, then enforced the discussion. It is my way to be lenient and not to block unless absolutely necessary. --John (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Banksy
Please do not removed source or sourced content without good reasons. Whether you like The Daily Mail is of no consequences, and if you want to remove it completely from wikipedia, then you better have a good consensus by fellow wikepedians which, as far as I can ascertain from the discussion you participated in, there isn't one. It is completely absurd to removed the original source, then keep another source (The Times) which in essence repeats what it says, especially when it is behind a paywall. If you don't like what it says, then you would have to delete the entire section, because that is the bulk of the source of the claim, removing the original source means that the bulk of the section is not properly sourced. Given that there are conflicting claims of his identity, the assertion on the BBC site is then also questionable when there is no proof on his identity, then you would have to consider that BBC is also an unreliable site. No site is completely reliable, so please make careful judgement when removing source or content, and not make blanket judgement. Hzh (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BLPSOURCES. Whether you like our policies or not is of no consequence; if you want to add trash sources to Wikipedia articles on living people you should be prepared to get blocked. I am perfectly happy to arrange this for you if you so wish. It seems silly though. Are you sure that is what you want? --John (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you resorting to threats? I'm simply pointing out the illogicality of your action, you either keep the source, or you remove the whole section, there is no middle ground. The Times repeating what The Daily Mail says doesn't not make the claim any more reliable. Hzh (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never threaten. I am merely pointing out what will happen next if you add unreliably sourced material to a BLP. I am sure neither one of us wants to go down that road. --John (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have stated clearly why you action was incorrect (you cannot remove the source but leave the content you consider unreliable behind), and you responded with a threat of a block and not explain why you left information you consider unreliable behind, I would called it at the least an uncivil approach. Hzh (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry then to have given you that impression. Restoring unreliable sources to an article on a living person after an admin had removed them was perhaps an unwise thing to do. Anyone will tell you (see the thread just above for example) how terribly lenient and tolerant I am when adminning, but this area is one in which I am utterly humourless. You would do well to consider the impact that adding speculative material sourced from tabloids can have on living human beings. Nevertheless I appreciate the collaborative approach you have taken in the conversations we have had and I am sorry if the mention of the possibility of blocking seemed uncivil. I was just being honest; one warning then straight to a block is my usual in this area where we are protecting the rights of living people. Take care, --John (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to drag this out further than it needs be, and as far as the page for Banksy is concerned, this matter is closed. But I do wonder if you are implying that I should know that you are an admin, that your edit on that page is of part of you job as an admin, and you don't have to answer for your edits should other people consider your edits to be wrong-headed (and stated quite clearly why it is wrong)? As far as I can see, you did not bother to reply to the points in my initial comment except to issue a warning. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
See [1] for an "interesting view" of reliable sources and BLPs. I still find the DM reliable for sporting and general news etc., but not all that great for contentious claims about living persons, but a former arb seems to demur on such a dichotomy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ubikwit seems hell-bent on trying to get me linked to the American politics ArbCom case <g>, and I think you recall the "vast depth of evidence" against me at the Tea Party case ... as long as two arbs whom I regard as being "involved" stay away, it should be ok. Cheers and thanks. Collect (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. ArbCom is one of the weak links of this project, along with DYK. Let me know if you want me to make a statement. --John (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merci. AGK has a bit of involvement with me, but I doubt he will properly recuse - he was the only one who provided "evidence" of my misdeeds at the "Tea Party movement" case (and was also the one who proposed "kill them all" as a shortcut to actual decision-making there). I also find his opinions about BLPs to be odd ... as his belief that it is right to casually add "parties" considering:
I am displeased at being listed as a party to this case. In the event that this request is accepted (a prospect I make no comment on at this point) and that the final decision involves some variation of the usual "All parties are reminded to act like reasonable adults" remedy, I would be annoyed enough to retire from editing. Doubtless many of the other administrators whose involvement in these disputes is confined to attempts to keep editor conduct in line will be similarly annoyed at having been listed as parties to this request. AGK 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
his own position in the past.
I don't even remember who added Collect, but I do note there has been a distressing tendency to accuse Collect of malfeasance whenever right wing politics articles arrive on ANI. I find this regrettable and have in the past spoken out rather strongly against it. I don't want to go look and find out who added Collect - I'd prefer not to know - but if they are reading this I suggest they consider carefully before adding Collect to any such list in the future. I have seen no evidence that Collect has acted improperly on TPM or the associated talk page; I think this is a case of a hanging party deciding Collect bears guilt by association. We should avoid such accusations. KillerChihuahua 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I suffered from something similar in 2009 when a trigger-happy arb added me to a case at the last minute with little evidence and the sleepy committee added me to a restriction list. I believe it is now time-expired but it left me with great contempt for the quality of the process. --John (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anders Behring Breivik
I didn't think my editing would be controversial!
The opening sentence of the 'Writing influences' section is very clogged, and for apparently no good reason. The Swiss People's Party is described as right-wing, even though the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria isn't given a description. I'm sure far more people have heard of Geert Wilders than of Srđa Trifković, yet the former is given a description and the latter isn't. It's not at all obvious what the point is of clarifying that Hindu nationalism is also known as Hindutva: this is the article for Anders Behring Breivik; if people want to learn about Hindu nationalism, they will click on the helpfully-provided hyperlink to the article about Hindu nationalism. The article for Patrick Buchanan is called 'Pat Buchanan', because that is the name he commonly goes by; so why shouldn't the hyperlink read 'Pat Buchanan' too? I'm sure, for the same reason, most Wikipedia articles that mention, for example, William Jefferson Clinton refer to him as Bill Clinton. If someone is in the position of not knowing who Taro Aso is, I doubt that such a person would benefit much, if at all, from learning merely that Aso is a "former Japanese Prime Minister". Again, that's what the hyperlink is for.
Removing helpful explanation is not a good idea. We cannot depend entirely on the wikilinking as someone may use a printed version of the article and it still has to make sense in a hard copy. --John (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, as I've explained, it's neither helpful nor consistent, and that's true whether the article's viewed online or in physical copy. Why shouldn't the Freedom Party of Austria also be given the description "right-wing"? Why shouldn't Srđa Trifković be given a description, since he's far less famous than Geert Wilders, who is given a description? Renren8123 (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Phineas Gage". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 May 2014.
I've requested temporary semi-protection for this page as the editor keeps using different IPs each time they edit. I don't know if page protection is extended to discussion pages but it is warranted here. It's interesting to see where these IPs geolocate to. LizRead!Talk!23:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's where Kumioko is located (M/DC/V) and the comments about abusive admins was a tip off. Any way, the page is semi-protected for the next few days. LizRead!Talk!14:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw. Good move protecting it I say. I haven't become involved in that whole discussion (I don't think) but I do have an opinion on it. Do you? --John (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the subject of the biography who objects to being called a pseudoscientist, or am I mixing up two dramas here? --John (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Kumioko. I don't know what this particular dispute is about--am I missing something? (It's fine to say 'no'.) Drmies (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. I am trying to go cold turkey on AN/I these days, at least for a while but my impression was that this CfD log concerned the matter I alluded to. I am not sure who Kumioko is, or whether there is a connection. It's ok that I don't know. --John (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aw gee thank you Drmies. That's very kind. I was astonished to see an article on a fairly well-known and recently-dead musician full of crap from tabloids and even Facebook. There should be plenty of material from obituaries to write a decent article. --John (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Morning John. How are you getting on? I made a gallery of photos for the above page. I thought myself that I went a bit overkill with the photos. I'm not really up to speed with a lot of things on wiki, so I don't really know a lot about wiki polices and do's and dont's. Is there any way a smaller gallery could be done, maybe 4 photos?. I'll stick by whatever you suggest. Nice to talk again. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discolover18 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I'm sure there's a compromise there. Too many pictures can overwhelm the article. Did you take them yourself? --John (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take them all. I got them from Wikimedia. I took a few, the new barriers, the plaque. I had loads of pics within the article. I scaled it down and then done the gallery. Maybe a gallery of 2 or 3 photos (leaving the ones that are already within the article). What do you suggest?? Just to say also, ive been messing with the bridge page for months and it still keeps giving me new info. It's pretty cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discolover18 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am really glad you are enjoying yourself, it's great fun, isn't it? As a rule of thumb, enough pictures to illustrate the article, and no gallery, is preferred. Pick the very best ones. --John (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No bother at all. It's a lot easier to check someone else's work than it is to write it yourself. You're a hard worker and a good writer. Thanks again. --John (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your right, I had look at the gallery thing again. It does kill it a bit. I'll just leave as is. And all this time, that wee button in the corner signs and dates your posts. Jings o, give me strength, lol.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you fancy some "quality control" work...
Tom Pryce, scheduled as TFA for 11th June, is a 2007 FA that could do with a fresh pair of eyes. I've tweaked a few things but you will probably be able to find others - hopefully nothing that can't be fixed in the next three weeks! If that doesn't finish you off, how about Quatermass and the Pit? It's the oldest FA yet to appear on the main page (promoted in 2004!) and it would be good to run it before it reaches its 10th anniversary. Anything that you can do with these - or indeed any of the articles at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page (even if it's just to put a N by the ones that need too much work to run) - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, BencherliteTalk14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some initial feedback, User:Bencherlite. Tom Pryce is a nice little article and I am quite happy for it to appear in its current form, although it is somewhat reliant on one source. I am trouble getting the reference formatting to work properly, something I am bloody awful at. User:Eric Corbett, any chance you could look at this for me? Quatermass and the Pit is heavily reliant on the DVD sleeve notes, which aren't the best source for non-trivial info. I wouldn't promote that one until some re-sourcing work can be done. Thank you for pointing me to two such interesting articles. --John (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll sort out the citations if nobody gets there before me. Pity about Quatermass and the Pit, might take a look at that as well. EricCorbett17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's very decent of you. I tried to base the coding on Maggie, but the reference doesn't click to the book title in the bibliography like it should. I am sure it is something really obvious but it isn't obvious to me. Thanks for anything you can do. --John (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just to do with the difference between the way that {{citation}} and {{cite book}} work; the latter needs the addition of a "ref=harv" parameter, whereas the former generates the link automatically. Anyway, the citations are fixed now, but I'd say that there's too much that's uncited, particularly in the 1974–77: Shadow section, which I think would make this a dodgey choice for the main page. I had a minor problem at Enid Blyton's recent FAC for instance, because not every paragraph ended with a citation. EricCorbett18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; told you it'd be something silly! Now you mention it, that section is rather short of refs. I will see what I can do. Thanks again, --John (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so calm...I have a problem with plagiarists and this comes out when I am talking to those people. He has been banned from commons for copyright concerns as seen at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1 yes "Wikiwatcher" and "Light snow" is the same person. This guy is the copyright violation master in every way...copy and pasting of text and uploading copyright images. Its beyond me how editors like this are still here. -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to step away for the Albert Einstein article - Its to much for me to see edits like this. Removing talk about his work and replace it with Churchill quotes about Jews. I hope others can get through to these quotes masters - last think we want is our scientist articles to look like the grade 10 level articles of the old starts of Hollywood like Stanley Kubrick, Elizabeth Taylor or Mickey Rooney. I have tried in the past to fix these but to no avail. -- Moxy (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Phineas Gage, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Morning John. As you know I've been editing the Erskine Bridge for a lifetime now. I think it's came on a bit. I've never tried my own article. I'm not that good yet. I have requested for an article to be done. However nobody's taken up my request. I was wondering if you would start an article for us, pretty please?? It would give me something different to get my teeth into, ye know. Thanks--Discolover18 (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Erskine Ferry, as you can guess, it was replaced by the bridge. I can find loads of info online about it. It would be good to have a page about it. It's certainly notable.--Discolover18 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can do it! I've filled in the first few words for you. See what you can do. Remember, good references are your friend. I'll help you as you go. --John (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for much mate, i'm really going to get into this tonight. Yeah, i'll probs need your help. Again mate........thanks a million.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, that's nice. I really appreciate the work you are doing for the project. It's a pleasure to be able to help you. --John (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be really chuffed if I can manage to do this, i'm already chuffed with the bridge page and that wasn't even me that started it. I can't wait to finish work and get into this.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a very great fan. Oranges and Lemons is my current favourite. The Dukes of Stratosphear stuff is really special though. Great production by John Leckie and really knowledgeable pastiches. Er, the cabal is on codebook 25 today, isn't it? I always forget. --John (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well skylarking was just reissued and Uncut did a nice 3 page piece on it. Jesus, Partridge and Todd Rundgren hated each other! Still, a classic. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't get on well but as I recall Partridge now gives Rundgren credit for being a great producer. --John (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rundgren reigned him in a bit, which was probably needed. Also reissued this month - Nightclubbing. Have it on for the last few nights, sounds as fresh as ever. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I did some work on the Grace Jones article about a year ago and listened to some of it then. It sounded good to me, especially Nightclubbing and Living My Life. Sly and Robbie seldom go wrong. Infidels by Bob Dylan is another favourite from that era. --John (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I'm not the onl;y person who likes 80s Dylan.[3]! By the way I'm far from a hardliner ;) Bit of a tart when it comes to music (cough). Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its a great song; well produced for Dylan then - the tightly bound snare gives it a sence of urgency largely missing from his work in that decade. To me that track calls up and approaches Reed's masterful "New York"; the last great thing Lou gave us. Ceoil (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the poke, I did notice but I got distracted by other stuff. I still very strongly disagree with you over that issue but I support your candidacy anyway. Maybe we can talk another time about the cultural relativism of swear words and taboos. For now, you are obviously going to succeed, so a pre-emptive welcome to the cabal. --John (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that in the past, I have commented somewhere, forgotten, and missed a reply, so I generally try to either leave a talkback message or an echo notification as a friendly reminder. Thanks for your support, and yes, I would be more than willing to discuss the issue with you at some point; out of civil discourse, much good has come. Let me know what venue works for you, and a time (preferably after the RfA is over), and let's discuss it. Thanks again for your support, and happy editing. -- GoPhightins!20:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I still bothered to vote at RfAs I'd be voting oppose based on the stand you took over that article. But as I don't you have nothing to fear from me. EricCorbett21:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I've seen me oppose on a point of principle before now, and maybe not often enough. But I appreciate GP's candour and I find I get more forgiving of others as I get older. At least most of the time. See my user page. Of course that's just the cover story and in reality I am one of a power-drunk elite of neo-Stalinist propensities. Have you seen the cabal I set up? --John (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find I get more impatient as I get older, but it would be a boring world if we were all the same. You have a cabal? Am I a member or is it admins only? EricCorbett21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's restricted to people called John, unfortunately, or you would be welcome to join. So far only User:John Reaves has responded positively, but I have high hopes of getting the other three on board in the fullness of time. Hey, thanks for looking at that Welsh race driver article for me. I added a few refs and I think I can get it shipshape on time. Could you take a look? --John (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that is rather elaborate. I have watched it and please ping me if there are developments that you think I have missed. I am sure you have nothing to worry about. --John (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly hope not! The whole thing is ridiculous. I mean my editing history is colourful to say the least, but I think the stand-out fact there is that if I'm going to break the rules I just go right ahead and break them; I don't hide behind another identity like my accuser is doing.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles19:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to worry. Are you looking for articles to edit? Have you ever used the "random article" button? There is a lot of work to be done. --John (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have used "Random article" a few times! What I usually do is just fix or improve anything I come across though. I'm a freelance writer and use Wikipedia a lot for research, and when I see something that doesn't look right I take a break and try to fix it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles20:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know what to say. That SPI is too complicated for me right now, but that's a statement about me, not the SPI--John, I'm involved with another real complicated one. At any rate, Fergus, accusing the accuser isn't a great idea, unless one has unbreakable evidence. John, you're a Brit, so you love soccer. Wasn't that an amazing game? Toodles, Drmies (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which game was that, sir? I have been writing a new article and have not had time for such frivolous pursuits. Looking forward to the World Cup though. --John (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Madrid vs. Madrid, madam. It was amazing. I don't get to see much over here, and it's too far away from me to care enough to keep up to speed, but this was really a fantastic game to watch. And no interference, since it was everybody's naptime! Drmies (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, even after reading the first couple of paragraphs I still have no idea what that is about, though I did learn a new word, in the phrase "dreich Edinburgh downpour". I hope that whoever you were rooting for won! But how can someone living in Europe "forget" the final for the Cup With The Big Ears? Drmies (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, I know. I daren't reveal who I wanted to win in that match lest it be held against me in the future. Hamilton were promoted and Hibs were relegated. So it goes. I used to be far more passionate about football but as I have got older I find it excites me less and less. Like a lot of things actually. The up side is that one gains almost god-like powers of wisdom. Do you like my new article? --John (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your copyediting on that. When there's a lot to do, I get lazy for a variety of reasons, but I really should be picking up more of the things you're picking up. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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'm being very good and sticking to my topic ban on Electronic Cigarette. However if somebody doesn't stop QuackGuru from turning it into a POV travesty I am going to seriously fucking snap. In the last two days the article has been gutted and the other editors are losing interest in the face of his relentless POV pushing.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles12:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it with me. It might be a few hours before I can properly look at this. Please be patient and don't do anything we'll both regret meantime. --John (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to put boxing gloves on so I can't type any more! Anyway, he's basically turning the article into a hatchet piece and if anyone else tries to change it he claims they're going against a consensus. Except if there is a consensus it's that the article is hopelessly slanted.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles20:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm awfully sorry, I got distracted by something else. I will pop over and ask for his side of it. Excuse me. --John (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than discuss this in two places, unless there is a separate issue you wish to discuss, we'll continue this at your talk and I'll archive this. --John (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Woops, i added a comment after you closed - it wasn't when i clicked edit. Feel free to remove it, and this comment as well. :) --Kim D. Petersen22:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I thought it might be worth noting that I made a comment on this issue on QuackGuru's talk page, but he deleted the comment (reverted my edit) and described this revert as, "You are free to improve the text rather than point fingers. You can change "some young people" to whatever you want."
I appreciate that the previous discussion here is closed, but thought that this was worth adding since it now seems difficult to continue the discussion at QuackGuru's talk page. Here is the [diff] which obviously includes the deleted comment.Levelledout (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The edit I made was an improvement but you only want to point fingers at me. If there is a problem with the text why you don't make a specific proposal or fix the text? QuackGuru (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
Thanks a million mate. Quite chuffed actually. Cheers for the star. I've also a wee bit left to do on the ferry page. Thanks for all your help.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that you do not delete parts of the conversation we are currently having at your talk page. You are welcome to delete it (or preferably archive it) once we are finished. I think it is reasonable for other editors to share their concerns with you at your talk. --John (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
