Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

Quick one

Hi John, quick one, I didn't see an WP:EXPLAINBLOCK on User talk:Imgaril (or linking which accounts, so possibly the other accounts I didn't check). Thanks Widefox; talk 11:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's so long ago, I can't remember. I can do some digging but it might take a while. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Kein Problem! Widefox; talk 11:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think it might be related to my block of Mddkpp (talk · contribs · logs). Still looking. --John (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is coming back to me now.

• Carrolljon (talk · contribs · logs)
• FengRail (talk · contribs · logs)
• Imgaril (talk · contribs · logs)
• Mddkpp (talk · contribs · logs)
• Sf5xeplus (talk · contribs · logs) and
• Shortfatlad (talk · contribs · logs)

were all blocked by me within a short period on 8 March 2012. I think it was a case of WP:DUCK and I seem to recall Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) may also have been involved. I really should have made a note in the block log as I honestly cannot now recall what he exact issue was. I can dig further for you or ping Black Kite if you like. --John (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

sorry it took some digging, there's no rush - just thought would help document/in future. Widefox; talk 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I cannot imagine why I did not document it at the time. --John (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Schneider CA1

Hi John. In Schneider CA1 you made some changes of a stylistic nature — and some changes in content. I disagree with some of the stylistic changes, but I can live with them; they are largely a matter of taste. The changes in content I corrected as they contradicted or incorrectly reflected the sources, explaining why they were incorrect. You then, without explanation, again returned them to their factually incorrect state. Might all this be resolved by me accepting your stylistic changes, and you accepting that, even if they are stylistically awkward, my representations of the sources are to be preferred, as I have actually read them? ;o)

Kind regards, --MWAK (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• It would be preferable to detail what the content changes you think I have made are, in article talk, and we can thrash out a compromise wording which is true to the sources and also reads well and idiomatically in English. For example, we would never use "annulled" in this way; it's a "false friend" from annuler in French, but it doesn't work in English. --John (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, Let's do that.--MWAK (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

John, I've made some remarks on the Schneider CA1 talk page. They include some proposals about reducing the ambiguity in the text — most of these problems had their origin in my failure to present the content in a sufficiently clear manner — and you might want to suggest some additional or superior solutions.--MWAK (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look when I can. Probably later tonight. --John (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sally Bercow

Hey, John. Please could you have a quick look at Sally Bercow's article. (Talkpage discussion) I removed some Daily Mail citations, and have been reverted a couple of times and accused of vandalism. I'm not sure on the reliability of the other publications, but I did notice the article also has IMDb as a reference. Also, can you point me to where it says for definite that the Daily Mail is not acceptable for BLPs? Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there. --John (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Heretic's Apprentice by Ellis Peters

John, the ping you asked for -- what further citations would lead you to find the article satisfactory in that regard, to remove the tag about needing more citations? You changed the tag from 'has none' to 'needs more'. Thanks! Prairieplant (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and will comment more fully in article talk. --John (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, thanks. Wishing for someone more knowledgeable on the subject of heresies; if not, just abridge that part. Much work ahead.Prairieplant (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I can give you a hand although I am not familiar with the work nor an expert on the subject. --John (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

All help is welcome. I am re-reading the series, working on the articles as I finish each book. I still have three books to read before I reach The Heretic's Apprentice and all its heresies and its mystery to be solved. I hope the part on Pilgrims and monasteries is adequately referenced. I learned a lot with that section, enhancing the book and my general knowledge. It will help me when my local library again subscribes to ProQuest, so I can see more of the non-blog commentary on the books.Prairieplant (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dr. Seuss may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• illustrated short stories, mostly in '']'' Magazine. Some of these were later collected (in volumes such as ''The Sneetches and Other Stories'' or reworked into independent books (''If I
• d pronunciation inconsistent with his German surname. He himself noted that it rhymed with "voice" (his own pronunciation being {{IPAc-en|ˈ|s|ɔɪ|s}} and Alexander Liang (his collaborator on the [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for pointing out the mistake, bot. --John (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not unilaterally unclose discussions

If participants in a debate were allowed to unilaterally undo the closings of discussions where they disagree with the result, anarchy would result. Your unclosing has been reverted, and please do not do that again without discussing it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see, so you are a supervoter. Please do not close discussions where you are unable to understand the issues involved. A simple majority is not a consensus. I am sure you are a great person, but on this occasion you have acted stupidly and damaged the community with your stupid action. --John (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Letting you know ....

Although we appear to have more similar than dissimilar views on the matter, I have just referenced one of your remarks at AN as a bad example. It happened to be the one that jumped out at me, for which I apologise. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. It seems there are a lot of people here who can't tell the difference between criticising behaviour and insulting the person. I sometimes think my four-year-old has more emotional maturity and common sense than the shower of cunts and arseholes who bay and howl at the drama boards. Well, I hope they are happy, from Fram who started this shitstorm, Sjakkalle who broke policy to try to make his punitive and incompetent close stick, all the way down to the bottom feeders who seem to exist just to slap each other's backs about how civil they are being while they chase content contributors off the project. Another day's work well done, eh? --John (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Expect more copyediting requests, John. That's assuming I still maintain interest in editing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, it is always a pleasure to hear from you. Not sure how much time I'll be putting in myself now either but you are welcome to ask. --John (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

John, since it's my remark you were responding to, on seeing Yngvadottir's comment, I wanted to assure you I wasn't offended by it. Puzzled a bit, since I really can't understand why that was your reaction, but not offended. For my part, I hope Eric comes back in a few weeks, and makes a commitment to try his best to not fly off the handle. That would be a win for everyone. But I'm also happy that a line has begun to be drawn as to what is clearly beyond the pale. I'd genuinely be curious to know what environment you work in off-wiki, and whether the type of discourse that provoked all this -- and that took place in the AN thread -- is acceptable there. I'm really not trying to be annoying or condescending, just in all collaborative environments I've been in -- academic, artistic, professional; on multiple continents -- this type of abusive, incivil language happens exceedingly rarely, and is always followed by embarrassment and mutual rueful apologies rather than escalation. I'd love to understand better the point of view that it is acceptable in response to people feeling their productivity bogged down by others. Martinp (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't like homilies and parables Martin, and I think what I particularly didn't like about yours was the implication that we have a hierarchy here. "I am reminded of a technical group I managed several years ago. We were a well functioning team and brought in a genius new team member, who had some real behavioural issues. Unfortunately, I tolerated his antics, giving him only weak chastisements." We do not operate like that here; Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in social organisation but neither is it your workplace or mine. It is a hobby, and everyone here is a volunteer and can leave whenever they want with no penalty. Neither is it your place or mine to issue "chastisements" to other editors; we tend to operate in a fairly loosely-organised way here, one step short of anarchy, yet look what a nice encyclopaedia we have written. I say "we", but I notice you have made only a very few edits, with 411 article edits, and 442 to the WP space. What we have traditionally had here is a respect for those who write the articles, and the idea of you (or me, as I say) "chastising" someone who has put so much of themselves into the project for a momentary loss of temper did genuinely fill me for a moment with physical nausea. Nevertheless, as several others have pointed out how mean it came across to express my feeling honestly rather than remaining silent, I apologise to you. --John (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply John (and the apology, though I really don't think it's necessary). I can see where you're coming from if you thought I was asserting a personal right to chastise or "give a homily". But that was not my intent. We are indeed consensus-driven rather than hierarchical around here, and I was not trying to "lord it over" Eric/Malleus. I was just trying to add my voice to the discussion and explain why I felt -- and continue to feel -- that the block that had been imposed by other members of the community was unfortunately necessary and a rapid overturn of it would be actively harmful to the community. I used an example from my personal experience to justify why I felt this, from an environment which was hierarchical, where I did have the power (but did not exercise it) that in our case the community has and was exercising. It's isn't at all about punishing or chastising Eric, at least not for me. It's about establishing that civility matters here, at least to the extent that someone who chronically responds to even pretty mild criticism by always having to roar louder, and when called on it by several people has a complete meltdown, needs to adapt his communication style -- or leave.

Finally, a point about my edit intensity. You correctly point out that I have been at best on the sidelines here for years. That's exactly due to the Wild West atmosphere that prevails, with drive-by templating, clueless "warnings" (aka threats) and blocks, and rampant incivility. My work involves knowledge development in a tough, intense, genuinely collaborative, and exciting environment. I love it, and I joined thinking doing the same here might be a nice hobby, albeit a "busman's holiday". But during my first attempt at an article, admittedly a pretty obscure one, the "collaboration" manifested itself by 2 regulars appearing out of nowhere and having a disagreement whether the article deserved a stub tag, a cleanup tag, or both -- helping neither clean it up nor expand it. Then - crickets chirping. I actually have some expert knowledge in a different area where Misplaced Pages's articles are quite poor and I'd like to help out there, maybe even kickstart a sorely needed rewrite of some articles. But the talk pages are filled by mutual broadsides between warring editors who call each other names when someone merely flips two existing poorly written paragraphs. People who write well -- and are clearly very articulate and deliberate in their choice of words -- run around bullying each other and random others who end up in their sights. In my work environment, none of those would be tolerated. Here it has become part of natural discourse - for instance, why did you consign to posterity with the Save page button the comments you've made on Sjakkele's close on this very page, rather than something worded like "Sjakkele, you were probably trying to reduce drama in a situation you felt was clear, but the discussion was ongoing, the consensus was far from clear, and your close rationale was in fact a supervote. That's what I object to." without accusations of incompetence etc? The discussion on AN included debate around whether Eric's behaviour is driving away editors or not. But the issue is not how many editors have ragequit after a personal fencing match with Malleus, it's about how many are like me, and fail to truly wholeheartedly contribute a tenth or hundredth of what they could, since any time they take the lid off and see the writhing underneath, they decide they have other things to do with their free time. Martinp (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah Martin, l'enfer c'est les autres, n'est-ce pas? It's in the nature of working with others that we annoy each other from time to time; it's because we care, and that's great. It's a life-long process to realise that some people will be just as aggrieved by a well-intentioned bad close or a well-intentioned bad parable as others will be by being called an "asshole" or a "cocksucker". I hereby undertake to consciously be nicer and more patient with those who annoy me. If there is ever anything I can do to directly help you to edit closer to your potential here, please let me know and I will endeavour to help. Thanks for your thoughtful message. --John (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC) And let me also add that I meant no disrespect or personal affront to Fram or Sjakkalle in mentioning them in the same sentence as the bottom-feeders on our drama boards. The former made a rather strict interpretation of NPA which I disagree with, as does a significant sector of our community, and the latter made a poor close and then flirted with wheelwarring when I undid it. I'm confident he got the message that his actions were unwise and that he will not repeat them. Hey ho. --John (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A bit confused...

Talk:Ecgbert (bishop)/GA1 - I'm not sure what is confusing to this reviewer ... can you look over it and see if I'm like insane or if I've really dropped the ball... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look, probably later this evening. I'm on holiday though so if I don't get to it tonight it may be a couple of days. I'll do my best. --John (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate it. We're sweltering in a heat wave for the next day so I have more "inside" time right now. Hope the holiday is going well! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I managed a quick pass. Let me know if it needs more. --John (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John. Much appreciated. Norman conquest is close to its bronze star! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, my pleasure. Sorry I couldn't give it more time. Glad to hear NC is doing well at FAR, it deserves to. --John (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Allen Carr article reversion

I'm curious about the reversion of the change I made to the Alan Carr page. I added an "In popular culture" section referencing Francine Lewis' impression of Alan during her performance in the seventh season of Britain's Got Talent. This is described in the article on her that describes her appearance on the show. I did include internal Misplaced Pages links to Francine's page and the Britain's Got Talent (season 7) pages, which mention her appearances on that program. Did I need an external reference in order for my addition to the ballot, or was there something else?

I haven't been doing edits on Misplaced Pages for all that long, so it is quite likely that I got something wrong. I, too, am A Bear of Very Little Brain, and would be happy to learn that I should be doing. /Bruce/ 23:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucewh (talk • contribs)

Sure, though you may not like it. Misplaced Pages cannot record everything and so we choose the most important things. Francine Lewis doing an impression of the subject would not come into it. If something really dramatic happened and it attracted widespread comment in reliable sources, we could look at that again. --John (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

I was just finishing up the final run through ... did not mean to conflict with you! I thought I'd make a run through for season issues and make sure that fyrd and housecarl were properly consistent. Now I can start begging for a copyedit to Battle of Hastings! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to beg, it's always a pleasure. I saw you mention me at Iridescent's page so took a look. I am sure it will be up to your usual standard. I am working at a low rate as I am on holiday and doing stuff but I will definitely have a proper look. --John (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No hurry at all. I'm busy with the season stuff here too - weeds seem to spring from sprout to waist high overnight. As a bonus - there isn't a single mention of a season in the article at all! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Mention of seasons is fine where they are relevant to the narrative. I am tidying my books today and when I find it I would like to add mention about the necessity of a summer or autumn landing, referenced to Churchill. I'll discuss in article talk as well, of course. --John (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did find A History of the English-speaking Peoples but it only relates (on p127) that there were six weeks without a south wind and that the Normans brought the bones of St Valery and carried them along the seashore. "This proved effective" and the invasion took place with a south-west wind. I am not sure this merits a mention after all. --John (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'd have some concerns with sourcing that to Churchill also - he's not exactly current or particuarly a scholarly source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This particular story comes from the Roman de Rou. How much credibility you choose to give Wace, writing a century after the event, is up to you. – iridescent 12:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the sources I'm using for the article don't give it much credence ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree; I just thought it would've been cool to add Churchill's thoughts on seasonal issues, but it turns out he never said that. I am chastened that my recollections of the source were inaccurate. The article looks good. Did you approve my copyedits? I might want to take another pass. --John (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

They looked fine to me at a quick glance. I figured that if you had concerns or questions about anything you'd bring 'em up on the talk page... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Good! I am still pissed off that my memory played me false like that, I must be getting old. WC would have been the ultimate source on what times of year a cross-channel invasion can and can't be attempted. Will take a second, more stringent pass, later this evening or tomorrow am. I have to say it's looking beautiful and it is hard to find prose to take issue with. But I will try. --John (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If User:Eric Corbett beats me often enough I can eventually learn. I do try to avoid too many commas now... As an aside, I think Billy Boy would have been happy to cross the channel whenever he got the winds - it can't have been easy keeping all those fractious nobles gathered together and waiting on the winds. Not to mention the expense of feeding them and their horses! Given the timing of Eddie's death, and the need to build the ships to cross with, there wasn't really much chance of them getting over to England before summer at the earliest. Billy might have won even if Tostig and Hardrada hadn't spoiled things in the north, but the aftermath would probably have been bloodier if Fulford and Stamford Bridge hadn't happened. Tostig and Hardrada would probably have contested Billy's conquest and the Godwin's might have rallied behind Tostig. There's no denying that Billy was a pretty competent general, and that he outgeneraled Harold at Hastings. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You're a great writer. I tend to avoid "a number of" as it could mean literally anything. I'm also not a fan of sentences with a "not only... but also ..."; I prefer to use a more prosaic structure (.... and .... happened) and let the drama come from the language (and the sources!). Other than that I'd say your prose is at a very high level indeed.

Regarding the battle, I am more into the 20th-century stuff and I like to compare it with Operation Sealion which even Hitler and Göring weren't stupid enough to attempt in 1940 or subsequently. William the Bastard (as Churchill calls him) had tactical surprise, a divided and distracted enemy, no naval opposition, and superior fighting skills. I don't think any of these would have pertained in 1940. Not to mention the Royal Air Force, though in my opinion their role has been popularly over-stated. --John (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was his own worst enemy. Leaving aside many other idiocies, declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor has to rate up there in the list of "greatest historical blunders ever". England's been lucky since 1066 - the right conditions have never really occurred again for a repeat of William's feat. My own opinion is that William would have conquered eventually, because of the military strength that he commanded compared to the A-S military structure. The A-S structure hadn't changed much since Alfred, and William's forces clearly had the greater military technology. Castles combined with cavalry would probably have meant the eventual conquest of England, it just would have been slower. Prince Louis in 1215-1216 couldn't repeat the feat partly because he wasn't fully supported, he lacked political accumen enough to not piss off the Anglo-Norman baronage, and England had 2 centuries almost of building castles all over the place as well as time to rejoin the mainstream of European military developments. Leaving aside William and Mary's "invasion", the only other chance of invasion that could have possibly worked was Napoleon ... and even he couldn't get past the Royal Navy. (We won't discuss the problems you Brits had dealing with some uppity colonists ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of two things. One was at the Jorvik centre a few weeks ago, when one of the staff dressed as a Viking was talking about the Norman Conquest, and I pulled him up for using "we" too glibly about the Anglo-Saxons versus the Normans. As I pointed out, Northern English people like him and Scottish people like me would probably have a lot more in common, linguistically and socially, with the Normans and even more with the Norwegians and Danes than we would with the A-S. The whole "we/they/us/them" thing is highly blurred for a Scot, or let's say nuanced. "They" frequently came up here and burned down all "our" castles. On the other hand they did come up with this terribly good language. The other, talking about pesky colonists, was my old friend Greg when I used to live in California. We used to love to sink a few beers and argue history. One of our favourite routines was to discuss the last date at which Britain and the US could viably have had a war. I think we settled on 1898 or so; had our interests diverged sufficiently over the Spanish-American War, I can imagine the RN giving the USN a bloody nose or two. Maybe even burning Washington again. The Oregon boundary dispute was also frequently raised as a late casus belli, though it was 50 years earlier. It's purely a "what-if" though as even then we had too much kith and kin with each other for it to fly. Any time much after that the US wins too easily. Plus (I always used to argue), there's long been a more developed ethic of pragmatism among the Whitehall lot of diplomats and military than on your side; maybe that originates with losing the US but "we" walked out of India and most of Africa with only a few minor wars. Compare that with Vietnam etc and you guys have a lot to learn about losing gracefully... or so I used to argue after a few beers. Anyway, fun working with you again. --John (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I haven't got to my second pass yet. Will try for tomorrow. --John (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries. Just got word hubby is working 12 hour shifts at night next week. Guess I'll be getting a lot done on wikipedia... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Huh. I'm on holiday, nominally but the User:John household never sleeps. Been doing a lot of travelling including a wee visit to Washington, DC and recovering from jet-lag, catching up with household tasks and social commitments. I am in Glasgow tonight meeting a friend. Back tomorrow and will look at your article again. --John (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I managed a slightly deeper second pass at the article. I asked one question in article talk. Other than that I think I would support it on prose quality and the rest at FAR; I would also be happy to help you respond to any concerns raised there. What do you think? --John (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I think we're probably close to ready. I need to deal with the usual dinner time stuff around the house (dogs in, horses fed, cats tripped over...) but will get it up at FAC tonight or tomorrow... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

References

1. Churchill, Winston (1956). A History of the English-speaking Peoples. Vol. 1. London: Cassell. p. 127.

Proposed deletion of Petty apartheid

The article Petty apartheid has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very short article which does not add anything much beyond the contents of Apartheid in South Africa.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This was already agreed as a redirect as long ago as 2006. Restoring the redirect would be a far smarter move than deleting it. --John (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UDR political poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:UDR political poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorted. --John (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for uploading that file to Ulster Defence Regiment. I opposed its removal by a copyright editor on the grounds that we need to show opposition to the regiment in addition to the other history to balance NPOV. The discussion regarding the removal is here Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review#Ulster_Defence_Regiment. There are several other files under discussion including another political poster called File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg which I think should also be restored to the "Political comments" section. I don't want to do it myself because I got into trouble when I last did. I was accused of trying to flaunt copyright rules but the copyright editors don't seem to mind you adding the first image so presumably they'll let you add the second one as well? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't see any note at article talk to reflect this discussion, which one would normally expect. I may well chime in at the NFCR page. Thanks for the note. --John (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There was no note. They were removed by a copyright editor and restored by me. I got banned for 48 hours for it because I was 1hr 30 minutes inside the 1RR limit. I then started the discussion at NFCR and removed the two posters pending the outcome of discussions. Your input would be greatly appreciated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Flight 214 / Criticism of NTSB by ALPA

Please come to Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Criticism_of_NTSB_by_ALPA to discuss encyclopedic value of ALPA's early criticism of NTSB for fueling speculation. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

David Rowland

Hi John

Thank you very much for your help. I just wanted to know as well if the source from the blog on this page is a reliable?

Kind Regards

Hopes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatherhope55 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No, blogs are not a reliable source for anything controversial on a BLP. --John (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at User:Sjakkalle

"someone like you who does not contribute content and can barely speak the language" is insulting, untrue, and totally uncalled for. The rest of your rant was completely off base as well. One User:Sjakkalle is worth a hundred of you. Quale (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The conversation was on 5 July, nearly one month ago. I stand by what I said. Now be gone, and troll my page no more. --John (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's funny; after dismissing it on the basis of being "outdated", you assert that it is still reflective of the status quo. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Scotire

I am sorry to say that after a brief respite that his/her antics are continuing. Let me know if you want diffs. Ben MacDui 08:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Sorry for your trouble. --John (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you. --John (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)