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

Request for help

Would you mind looking at the prose at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4? Although it has been reviewed by several copyeditors, there's a request that you (or Erik) specifically take a look, as the editor requesting your review believes no-one else is capable of helping, and thus justifies his objection. I am sure you are busy, but I'd appreciate your help here, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look. --John (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert M. Bond

Hello! Your submission of Robert M. Bond at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thincat (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this template-speak. I was looking for an article to review and was really glad I found yours! My only question is about the QPQ review requirement. Do you need to do one or have you done one? Misplaced Pages:Did you know. I'm a bit of a novice at DYK so I don't know how to do a proper check. The actual review was fine. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking some more and can't find reference to Sadat and the MIG-23 in Davies, page 72. I can see something here and 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron gives this as a reference but I can't access it. I don't think it is any sort of a problem for DYK but it would be good to sort out. Ah! I've just found I can see from a snippet that it is stated on page 73 of Davies (searching on "Egypt") but I can't read that page (I can see 72)! Thincat (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I am not sure how helpful my contributions at Template:Did you know nominations/LORAN were, or whether they fulfil the criteria. I am a newbie here too. As regards the referencing, I just bought a copy of Davies so I will be overhauling the referencing using the paper copy. So much easier than Amazon preview. Thanks again, --John (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given the DYK a tick – I think that review should count. Anyway, if you have fewer than five DYKs you don't need to do a review anyway. The checking tool seems to be defunct. Thincat (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! --John (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Crinan, Argyll

I am pretty certain this article should be Crinan, Argyll and Bute which is a redirect. I'm sure we use present counties but I'm not sure how to fix it as Misplaced Pages's workings remain a mystery to me. I think you are a Scot, can you help? J3Mrs (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Or should it be just Crinan because as far as I know there is only one? J3Mrs (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be at Crinan. --John (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I can do that. J3Mrs (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So much for optimism, I couldn't do it as there is a disambiguation page with the same name. :( J3Mrs (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. --John (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again thank you, and sorry to trouble you. J3Mrs (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome. --John (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Erskine Ferry

Hi John. I'm in work at the moment. I was wondering if you could check the Erskine Ferry page for us and then clean up the bare url's. My Pc wont let me at the minute. It's annoying me knowing they are like that. Thanks for your help. --Discolover18 (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers mucker. --Discolover18 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Any time. --John (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Kronan-thanks

Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.

Peter 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.--John (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User QuackGuru

Greetings! Do you mind taking a look at QuackGuru's most recent edits after his block expired? Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=611727162&oldid=611632570 As you can see from the edit history, he reverted edits that were already approved by 7 different editors. I restored the version that was following the consensus and clearly stated my edit summary as follows:

Revert this if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been 7 editors who have approved of this edit (Herbxue, Dougmcdonell, Jayaguru-Shishya, 2044.174.12.10, Jytdog, Bumm13). https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Consensus#mediaviewer/File:Consensus_Flowchart.svg

There were 7 different editors who approved the version before QuackGuru's revert per Misplaced Pages:Consensus Flowchart. Now he has reported me to Kww at User (talk): Kww. Thanks in advance! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have a look. --John (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain what he's thanking you in advance for. I was going to let discussion play out. For what it's worth, I don't see a consensus for the removal, and can't reproduce Jayaguru-Shishya's math. He's been challenged to provide diffs showing that the editors he claims have supported his removal have actually done so, and has not done so. Of the seven he's listed, one doesn't exist (no IP address begins with "2044"), one doesn't seem to have mentioned the topic at all (Bumm13), and at least two are from editors that are actively attempting to promote pseudoscience (Jayaguru-Shishya and Herbxue), so his claim of consensus for removal certainly doesn't appear to be a slam-dunk.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Typo. 2044.174.12.10 Correct: 204.174.12.10. Could have been easily seen from Revision history. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I've asked the editor to give a rationale for the edit. Let's see what he says before we jump to conclusions, in either direction. --John (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It would appear to me that Jayaguru's reversion is more questionable than QG's edit.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am pertaining to WP:Consensus Flowchart. Since the revert QuackGuru made over the edit of Bexgro, you can easily see from the Revision history that how many users have kept editing the article remaining User Bexgro's edit. The number is 7 (correct me if I'm wrong). This includes that ip-address editor and me as well. If you liked to leave me and that ip-address (okay for me) out of calculations, there are still many editors who were just fine with the edit. And as I stated in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong,...". So what's the problem here?

Please show me the diffs where QuackGuru has tried to resolve this with other users? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User QuackGuru has totally abandoned talk at the article Talk Page and has not even tried to discuss this with other editors. My latest reply on QuackGuru's accusations on Kww's Talk Page can be found here: .

QuackGuru is resorting to an admin, ignoring all discussion at the article Talk Page, and now Kww is threatening me with a ban even I have clearly stated that QuackGuru's edit was against WP:CON. I have also in a settling tone asked them to correct me if I am wrong. This is not the first time of Kww's unprofessional administrative behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:CON:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Misplaced Pages. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time.

As one can see from the Revision history, the edit by user Bexgro enjoyed consensus per WP:CON for edits by 7 different editors until QuackGuru's revert. If I am interpreting the WP policy wrongly, I'd appreciate to be corrected. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Before I even look at this in detail, please be advised that I care not a fig for traditional Chinese medicine, but I am highly averse to seeing tendentious editing in any of these areas. --John (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The continuous whitewashing of TCM is getting rather tendentious. Even though I don't edit the article or talk much, watching is a constant drain on my time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk · contribs)'s comment here talk:TCM and others does not make for a collaborate environment. In fact, it is quite contentious. Removal of the word "Pseudoscience" from the lede was discussed at length here, yet Jayaguru-Shishya removed it again here claiming "consensus". This appears to be 'voted' on often. Jim1138 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)