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

Keep me posted

Keep me posted on when you think R U Professional is ready.

Thanks again so much for your help,

— Cirt (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. --John (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editing by IP 91.122.2.96

John, can you possibly warn @91.122.2.96 about his/her uncommunicative edits on wikipages Action (physics), Planck constant, and Zero-energy universe? @Hroðulf has also tried to work constructively with the situation. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I blocked them for their combative behaviour. --John (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

• From the editor: A sign of the times: the Signpost revamps its internal structure to make contributing easier

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation and OTRS team both publish reports, indicate operating changes

• Editorial: Conspiracy theories distract from real questions about grantmaking report

• Traffic report: Attack of the movies

• Arbitration report: Bradspeaks—impact, regrets, and advice; current cases hinge on sex, religion, and ... infoboxes

• Interview: Meet a paid editor

• In the media: Kanye West rebranded; Misplaced Pages in court; editors for hire

• Featured content: Ploughing fields and trading horses with Rosa Bonheur

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Blog: Black History Month edit-a-thons tackle Misplaced Pages’s multicultural gaps

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Joy Division

This showed amazing resilience for such young guys. I'd like to emphasise N.O. more in the lead; for me JD is more about Summer and Mr Hannet than Curtis. Though I started life as a bass player, cough. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, I was a bass player at one time too. I liked both bands very much, but I think I (slightly) went off NO latterly. JD and Curtis benefited from the Marilyn Munro effect; by dying young and beautiful they became heroes for ever. --John (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, if I think about it, the scattering of songs that I am really fond of over the whole period (1977-present) are pretty even (Isolation/Transmission/No Love Lost as my 3 preferred JD tracks - Ceremony/Age of Consent/Everythings Gone Green/True Faith/Jetstream fave NO tracks). Funny thing is of my 2 older kids, my son prefers JD and daughter NO. Agree about Munro effect - even happened to INXS, who by the time of MH's passing were descending into mediocrity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I Saw You Act More in Sorrow than in Vexation

Patience in the Midst of a Barrage from an EditWarrior

I stumbled upon your handling of a certain T— — for the past few months and skimmed a very little bit. Your patience, Sir John, Sir, was epic. I'd consider giving you my sliver of the Erasmus Prize, but it's too small for the human eye to see and I've lost it already. Oh, well. At least it's somewhere here at home, and I get to share the honor with wonderful people like you, who I'm sure at least get a visible strip of the adornments! Geekdiva (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your comments very much. --John (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Oddfellows

Greetings John! I was wondering if you had time to have a quick look at the article Oddfellows? There seems to be some problems with a few IP editors: 2.27.78.251, 2.27.78.13, and 163.167.125.215. I'll try to explain the problem with a few bullet points real simple and short:

1. The first IP editor added a section about Manchester Unity Credit Union on 25th February, but the text couldn't be verified by the source.
2. I rewrote the first paragraph on 8th March in such a way that it would correspond what the source actually said.
3. My edit got reverted, however, by the second IP with an Edit Summary "rv."; the source still couldn't verify the text.
4. I reverted this unexplained edit back to the previous version, but it got reverted by the same IP editor again, this time with an Edit Summary of "inelegant prose".
5. I messaged the IP editor's Talk Page, and explained him that the source does not support the text, and asked him to address what's exactly wrong with my edit instead of mere blind objection.
6. While waiting for the user to reply, I tagged the paragraph with {{fv}}, and the paragraph right below with {{citation needed}}. This got reverted by the third IP editor per "rv. not controversial statement". As far as I am concerned, one has right to tag unsourced pieces of text per WP:VERIFIABILITY. I believe the same applies to pieces of text that have failed verification.
7. I restored the tags with an Edit Summary: "The first paragraph is not supported by the source, and the second paragraph clearly lacks of a souce | I've asked an admin to take a look at this", and shortly after the same IP editor removed the tags again, this time by saying that "rv. for reasons already given"

It seems there have suddenly popped up three different IP editors, all editing over the same content, and all of which seem to share the same interest towards credit unions according to their user contributions. Do you think they might be socks? I hope you have time to take a look, thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I set out the sequence of events here. You will see that Jayaguru-Shishya is making a habit of bad faith accusations. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yepp, when I asked for the page protection, I mistakenly reported only one IP instead of two. After that, a third IP has already appeared. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've protected one week and removed the dubious material per WP:V. I agree something looked dodgy about those edits. --John (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Er, what looked dodgy exactly? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (same user as 163.167.125.215).

Sourcing, promotion, and the impression that the three IPs are tag teaming. --John (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

IPAs, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I wish! --John (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)