User talk:John
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Welcome to my talk page! I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here.
|
| Talk page archives: |
|---|
| /Archive 1: January 2006 – June 2006 |
| /Archive 2: July 2006 |
| /Archive 3: 1 August - 9 August |
| /Archive 4: Rest of August 2006 |
| /Archive 5: September 2006 |
| /Archive 6: October 2006 |
| /Archive 7: November 2006 |
| /Archive 8: December 2006 |
| /Archive 9: January 2007 |
| /Archive 10: Messages from during Guinnog's break |
| /Archive 11: March - early April 2007 |
| /Archive 12: Rest of April 2007 |
| /Archive 13: May 2007 |
| /Archive 14: June 2007 |
| /Archive 15: July 2007 |
| /Archive 16: August 2007 |
| /Archive 17: September 2007 |
| /Archive 18: October 2007 |
| /Archive 19: November 2007 |
| /Archive 20: December 2007 |
| /Archive 21: January 2008 |
| /Archive 22: February 2008 |
| /Archive 23: March 2008 |
| /Archive 24: April 2008 |
| /Archive 25: May 2008 |
Contents |
[edit] "The Great Hunger"
John, can you explain what happened? It's beyond me.... Wotapalaver (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Gomez
Both sources say "elope" - so in the spirit of NOR shouldnt we be using that!?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thought long and hard about this. In my opinion, we should echo the content of the sources, but without necessarily using the same language they do, if the language they use is mistaken, as in this case. Another example of this from yesterday was when I edited an article about an explosion which used to talk about a "massive" explosion. Massive is not a synonym for large (though many lazy people use it that way); it means "having mass" or "heavy" and can never be applied to explosions, which consist of gas and have almost no mass at all. It's perfectly possible that the source contained this mistake too (I didn't check the source, although I did in the case of Gomez), but that is no reason that we should. Feel free to take it to talk if you feel strongly about this. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- While one meaning of "massive" is "having mass" other uses of the term are synonyms of large. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Massive : "large in scale, amount, or degree", "Large or imposing, as in quantity, scope, degree, intensity, or scale", "Large in comparison with the usual amount"... Tweisbach (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- While you may have a point, dictionary.com is hardly a reliable source for meanings. It is riddled with error. Show me a reputable (preferably paper) dictionary that gives the meaning you describe and I am more likely to take you seriously. --John (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- My computer dictionary, which is based on the New Oxford American Dictionary gives the following as the second definition of massive: "exceptionally large : massive crowds are expected. • very intense or severe : a massive heart attack. • informal particularly successful or influential : the title song became a massive hit." Tweisbach (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's interesting, but with all respect hardly a verifiable source in my opinion. --John (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- My computer dictionary, which is based on the New Oxford American Dictionary gives the following as the second definition of massive: "exceptionally large : massive crowds are expected. • very intense or severe : a massive heart attack. • informal particularly successful or influential : the title song became a massive hit." Tweisbach (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- While you may have a point, dictionary.com is hardly a reliable source for meanings. It is riddled with error. Show me a reputable (preferably paper) dictionary that gives the meaning you describe and I am more likely to take you seriously. --John (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- While one meaning of "massive" is "having mass" other uses of the term are synonyms of large. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Massive : "large in scale, amount, or degree", "Large or imposing, as in quantity, scope, degree, intensity, or scale", "Large in comparison with the usual amount"... Tweisbach (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(reduce indent) Saw this while adding comment below. My Concise OED gives Massive: 1 large and heavy and solid 2. relatively large; of solid build 3. exceptionally large 4. substantial, impressive 5. not visibly crystalline 6. without structural divisions. I'm leaving out the additional notes but - while I agree that massive should formally mean "has lots of mass" - it's clear that "substantial", and "large" etc, are documented meanings. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. 'Documented in a dictionary' is not the same as 'ideal for encyclopedic usage' though, and this distinction needs to be borne in mind. Having said that, I am grateful for the feedback. --John (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hiberno English
Hi John. I was just checking a usage of "would" in Hiberno English (about how Irish people use it in places that confuse many people because they don't mean anything conditional at all). I went looking for other phrases that I had heard too and didn't find them. Rather than just editing them in, I found that they had been in the article before and a quick search showed me that you'd edited out a bunch of phrases (including the ones I was looking for) in August 2007 on the basis that they were OR and/or not exclusive to Ireland. Apart from the fact that half of that page isn't referenced at all anyway, which makes me wonder why some phrases attracted y our attention and not others, even a quick look suggests that many of the phrases you deleted could easily be referenced and/or are predominantly used in Ireland. Rather than spend time researching all the phrases you deleted, can you explain the edits to me? thanks. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you can show me the diff you are talking about that would be a help. As you no doubt know, unreferenced material can be deleted at any time. If you can find proper references then feel free to re-add the material. --John (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I appreciate that unreferenced material can be deleted at any time but since hardly anything in the lexicon section is referenced the extensive, yet selective, nature of the removals piqued my interest and removals from lexicons like that are hard to repair since the original contributor may be long gone. The diff is [1] You did an additional removal a little later. Many of the terms removed are listed in the hiberno-english archive and are easy to verify [2]. For example, two of your deletions are "cute" and "hoor". They're in the HE archive, which is apparently maintained by a Professor of English. You deleted a LOT of words. "Couple" is another one that had recently caused me some confusion and which you deleted. It's in the archive too. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I stand 100% behind what I did. "Bird"? "Hoor"? Come on. If you are able to provide proper references that these are uniquely Hiberno-Irish, I will be enormously surprised. Any further correspondence regarding this can best be addressed to Talk:Hiberno-English I think. --John (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that a term needs to be uniquely Hiberno-Irish to qualify for inclusion on the page. There are quite a few terms that are in Hiberno-English that - AFAIK - will only exist in Britain in restricted areas but which are not in general use in Britain whereas they are in general use in Ireland. Taking two specific examples and demanding "unique" references is not a reasonable response to my question, which was whether you were bulk deleting things in a reasonable way. As for "Cute", it should be there with it's particular idiomatic usage, as should "hoor". On the topic of "uniquely", hoor in particular specifies, on the HE archive page in any case, that it's originally Old English - as are many of the Hiberno-English terms. I'll bring this to the article talk page, but really! "Hot Press" is another example. Even OED lists the usage of "press" as "cupboard" as specifically Irish or Scottish, it's in the article again, yet you deleted "hot press". Your deletions seem careless/opinion driven rather than reasoned. Only a little incremental work could have found the references instead of simply selectively picking deletions. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it seems we differ on what the scope of the article should be then. As I said, this would best be addressed to the article talk page. Let me again state though that I stand 100% behind what I did; articles like these unfortunately attract a lot of 'cute' cruft which needs to be ruthlessly trimmed out lest the articles become useless cruftbuckets. Glasgow patter is another article which I have occasionally decrufted in a similar fashion; per WP:V any editor may remove material which is unreferenced and the onus is on the editor wishing to retain it to provide proper references. See you in article talk, where I look forward to you showing me how 'bird' is a uniquely Irish locution. --John (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- John, I never said "bird" was uniquely Irish, nor that any of the words were. I have no objection to removing cruft, but I do feel that your deletions were above and beyond reasonable cruft removal. See you on talk. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, it seems we differ on what the scope of the article should be then. As I said, this would best be addressed to the article talk page. Let me again state though that I stand 100% behind what I did; articles like these unfortunately attract a lot of 'cute' cruft which needs to be ruthlessly trimmed out lest the articles become useless cruftbuckets. Glasgow patter is another article which I have occasionally decrufted in a similar fashion; per WP:V any editor may remove material which is unreferenced and the onus is on the editor wishing to retain it to provide proper references. See you in article talk, where I look forward to you showing me how 'bird' is a uniquely Irish locution. --John (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that a term needs to be uniquely Hiberno-Irish to qualify for inclusion on the page. There are quite a few terms that are in Hiberno-English that - AFAIK - will only exist in Britain in restricted areas but which are not in general use in Britain whereas they are in general use in Ireland. Taking two specific examples and demanding "unique" references is not a reasonable response to my question, which was whether you were bulk deleting things in a reasonable way. As for "Cute", it should be there with it's particular idiomatic usage, as should "hoor". On the topic of "uniquely", hoor in particular specifies, on the HE archive page in any case, that it's originally Old English - as are many of the Hiberno-English terms. I'll bring this to the article talk page, but really! "Hot Press" is another example. Even OED lists the usage of "press" as "cupboard" as specifically Irish or Scottish, it's in the article again, yet you deleted "hot press". Your deletions seem careless/opinion driven rather than reasoned. Only a little incremental work could have found the references instead of simply selectively picking deletions. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I stand 100% behind what I did. "Bird"? "Hoor"? Come on. If you are able to provide proper references that these are uniquely Hiberno-Irish, I will be enormously surprised. Any further correspondence regarding this can best be addressed to Talk:Hiberno-English I think. --John (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate that unreferenced material can be deleted at any time but since hardly anything in the lexicon section is referenced the extensive, yet selective, nature of the removals piqued my interest and removals from lexicons like that are hard to repair since the original contributor may be long gone. The diff is [1] You did an additional removal a little later. Many of the terms removed are listed in the hiberno-english archive and are easy to verify [2]. For example, two of your deletions are "cute" and "hoor". They're in the HE archive, which is apparently maintained by a Professor of English. You deleted a LOT of words. "Couple" is another one that had recently caused me some confusion and which you deleted. It's in the archive too. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Categories for Depeche Mode
John, could you please look into this dispute and rv war regarding categories. It seems to me that the more categories the article is linked to the easier it is for the reader to find it. Also, am I wrong thinking that since many other bands are in those categories, DM should be there by all means? Garik 11 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have a look today or tomorrow. --John (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you John. Still, what is your opinion as an administrator and Depeche Mode-interested person concerning categorization in this case, (talk)? I am sure the reader would be much comfortable browsing through main categories "English musical groups" and "British electronic music groups", not their fairly vague subcategories. Depeche Mode belong there by rights. Am I wrong? Garik 11 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you =)
John, thanks for dropping by my talk page to congratulate me on my successful RFA. I think one of the most important things that came out of my RFA was my realization that my username is not just hypothetically inappropriate, but that there is a real probability for it to offend people or cause them apprehension. I've posted an in depth RFA analysis and this is the main issue that I am exploring (I also touch on the remark to kmweber that you noted was your main reason for opposing), and your further input is welcome. if the technical issue can be worked out, I'll most likely be changing my username to simply "Xeno". I'd much rather be a stranger than a stranger-killer. templated RFA thanks is also available below. thanks again, xenocidic (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. My congratulations were sincere. I hope you will bring the same thoroughness and thoughtfulness to your work as an admin that you have to resolving this matter. If you do I am sure you will be a great admin. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Matt Lewis
Hello John, I have come to you because you are an admin, Matt Lewis has been harassing me for the last few days and more telling me my comments are pro-nationalist POV on the British Isles talk page, which led to a discussion on his talk page. I have generaly kept my cool and asked him to keep his. Unfortunately it came to a head on his talk page when he told me to f***k off. I have really had it with him and would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Thank you. Jack forbes (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Without having looked in great depth I can see incivility from both of you there. Can I suggest you both try to avoid each other for say a week and see if things die down? --John (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I do think if you look closer at his talk page you will find a running theme. He is quite frankly rude to anyone who disagrees with him. Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mary Moffat
Can you explain why you deleted my new article on Mary Moffat ? There was a hold on tag as well as a newly created talk page regarding her work? This was my first article on here on a very important woman. Franco12 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I read both the article as it stood and the talk page and I was not convinced that the article asserted her significance in a way that satisfied our policy on notability. There is no bar on you writing a better one; if you want to do that I can move the deleted content into your user space so you can work on it before going live with it the next time. This is what I do when I write articles. --John (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
