Jump to content

User talk:John Anderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Johan Magnus 14:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:-))

Wikipedia:Babel

[edit]

Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. John Anderson 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The host nation should be highlighted in a different color.

[edit]

Hi, on the Wikipedia:Olympic conventions page, you voted to oppose this measure, but on the Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions page, you voted to support it. The voting from the project page have been merged into the talk page, and this was the only case where someone had voted different ways on each page. I have changed the vote to neutral for now. Can you please go here and change your vote to the way you would like it? Wikipedia_talk:Olympic_conventions#The_host_nation_should_be_highlighted_in_a_different_color. Thanks. --Josilot 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to apologize for changing your vote, I can see by the comment you left that it upset you, and I'm sorry that it happened. The only reason I did it was because, like I said, you had voted two different ways in the same poll (why the two were worded differently, and why voting was allowed in both of them at the same time, I don't know). Also, the comment you made got me thinking. You support highlighting the host country, but not in blue as it is now. Perhaps you can suggest to me what color you think it should be? I highly doubt that there will be a followup resolved after this one passes that says "ok, now that we've decided to go with a highlight, we need to pick a color". The wording may be confusing, but by supporting the measure you are supporting leaving the 2006 table as is, with the highlight applied in a darkish blue. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up some things and let you know that I'm sorry for the confusion.--Josilot 20:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. My idea is, the highlight should be an only slightly darker shade of grey. The dark blue is too much, I think. If my vote will be interpreted as supporting, I will change it. John Anderson 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

[edit]

Hi John, I made the change (which you are welcome to revert) to reduce the scrolling needed to reach letters further down the alphabet and to reduce the waste of space, unaware that there was a discussion about the format of the page. On that discussion (which I have now seen), I think that adding more information would be a good idea to make the list more encyclopaedic. mattbr30 12:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list should be alphabetical with the category of star, year of award and the address. I'm not sure the nationality of the person is needed as this can be found from the main article. I don't think adding a show/hide bar is a good idea either. As a side note, I am working through the list to add the category to articles that don't have it already and checking the official website before I add it, but there are some names which are not on the official site but are on the list, such as Aaron Carter and Adam Sandler, is the website definative in these cases? mattbr30 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know I would rather trust the official website than the list here, unless I had acctually seen a certain star on the Walk of Fame myself (which I haven't, I've never been to California). John Anderson 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I have made a change. See my comment on the talk page. mattbr30 09:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name changes

[edit]

You're moving article names without respecting consensus. Please discuss issues like these before making the moves. Preferably at Talk:Skåne. Your choice of "Scania (region)" is also not a particularly good one. If the article is to be moved it should be to "Scania".

I would also recommend that you revert the name changes in articles that you have made.

Peter Isotalo 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? It is called Scania in English, no consensus can change that. I can't move it to Scania, because that is a disambiguation page. I will not revert any changes, rather I would prefer to continue changing links to go to Scania rather than "Skåne". John Anderson 10:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at Talk:Skåne is not in favor of your actions. Please revert your changes until you've actually read up on the matter. You're only going to provoke minor reverting contests by unilateral edits based on personal experience rather than neutral arguments and sources.
Peter Isotalo 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I did not know a consensus in a discussion on Wikipedia could change the common usage of the English language. But I'll take a look at that talk page. John Anderson 11:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John! I've just learnt from Olessi that you did make an official request of moving Skåne → Scania on October 10, but didn't comply with the rest of the procedure. I'm sure this was an oversight; you really didn't hide your wish for a request; but until the "steps 2 and 3" were completed, we others didn't understand that THE OFFICIAL request was ongoing. (Please see the end of the Skåne talk page, and the description of the procedure at WP:RM!)
Well, no trouble this time - except that I still think we should take part of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) discussion first, that is - but please make all three steps the next time you request a move! It makes the world a little, little easier to understand :-) JoergenB 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

[edit]
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. I am equally elated and humbled by my new capacity as administrator of Wikipedia, and I send my heartfelt thanks for your unflinching support. If you need me for anything, just ask me! With gratitude, 210physicq (c) 03:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

[edit]
Hi, John Anderson! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Coredesat 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of name change of Skåneland

[edit]

Please see Talk:Skåneland to discuss a possible name change. -  AjaxSmack  00:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair - The Queen

[edit]

I haven't seen it myself either. If you think it should go off the list, I won't object. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go-Go Boots Change

[edit]

I like the changes. Kudos! --Joel Lindley 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! John Anderson 10:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of real people appearing in fictional context

[edit]

Thanks for the note on the DRV. If you want I'm happy to email you the version that was deleted, if you are interested in trying to continue that project on some other site. However, please do not "start over" unless the DRV allows it -- sometimes an article concept is rejected by the community, and if that's the case, ignoring the community and recreating the article is disruptive and will just lead to WP:CSD#G4 deletions anyway. Mangojuicetalk 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after my original outburst, I have been given it thought and acctually considered the same thing even before you suggested it here, that is, publish and continue working on the list on some other page. I think it would be better, given that it is a list of less useful facts, more of curiosities. However, I was under the impression the article has to be undeleted to retrieve the contents of it? John Anderson 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- sorry I didn't notice this earlier but I usually expect responses on my own talk page. Anyway, I can email you the deleted contents, but you have to either email me (using the email this user link) or specify an email address so I can email you. Mangojuicetalk 12:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Whoops. Anyway, no need to look up my email address. Just go to my user page and click "E-mail this user". Mangojuicetalk 16:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Championship

[edit]

Thanks for the thumbs up! I've really enjoyed working on it. Readro 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics

[edit]

I don't want to make a big deal of this, so lets keep it as Trivia then if you insist. And another thing, had the Finns acted differently regarding this, the Swedes COULD have lost their gold medals. It's not at all certain that that would have been the case. But let's keep it as Trivia.

Bandy

[edit]

Hi, Very nice that you have done so much in bandy related articles lately. Actually Rolf Käck stepped down from the possition as secretary general at the meeting arround the World Championships this year. Unfortunatly the international federations home page is not updated often enough, so these sort of things might slip through. Sveriges Radio has a short article about this, for example. Linkan 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a new Secretary General? Anyway, I'll remove that line again. John Anderson 12:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Secretary General will be appointed after the summer. (I moved your comment here since I prefer discussions held in one place). Linkan 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent F1 results for Ferrari

[edit]

Hi John. Congratulations on taking on the challenge of adding Ferrari's F1 results to the article. I have a question - do you have access to fastest lap information? It occurs to me that it would probably be good to add in the fastest laps "as we go" rather than going through and adding them all afterwards. DH85868993 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boot fetish redirect

[edit]

I redirected the Boot Fetish article to the Garment fetishism article because it lacks any attribution at all. I left a small blurb on its existence without making any real assertions about it because of that lack of attribution. If you feel that it would be better integrated into the shoe fetish article that would be something I wouldn't mind mulling over. How about a "Footwear fetish" article that could integrate both and assit with attribution? Hope to hear your thoughts either way. NeoFreak 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandy World Cup

[edit]

Yes, I could have corrected the grammar on that sentence. However, it interrupted the flow of the article - the sentences both before and after are about the tournament as a whole, not the timing of individual matches. The fact that some matches are played at night seems like trivia at best since that's not unique to this sport, if the sentence belongs at all, it does not belong in such a prominent place in the article. Obviously, I didn't say all this in my edit summary, it would have been much too long, so I just mentioned it was ungrammatical, not out of place (with no good place to put it), insignificant, and probably unneccessary. Edward321 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party clean up

[edit]

Recently you deleted a bunch of parties from the Democratic Party disamb. Fair enough. But you deleted both parties for the Australian listing. I can understand why you dropped the "Liberty and Democracy Party" because you wouldn't be aware that they also call themselves the "Liberal Democratic Party"; but you also deleted the "Australian Democrats", yet left other parties called "democrats". Was there a reason you deleted Australia? -- PaulxSA (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:F1 Newsletter Issue 1

[edit]

Hey! I thought that you should recieve our first F1 WP newsletter. Please resopnd if you would like to keep having it!LB22 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fantastic!

[edit]

Thanks for subscribing! I now know that my newsletters will get noticed! I am really happy! Also, if you would ever like to help me make parts of the newsletter, don't be afraid to approach me!

Sincerely,

LB22 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question. Would you like to re-subscribe for the Newsletter? LB22 sadly retired so the job's been left to me and Diniz we have finally overcome the great climb after thinking we were good when we were missing the point but that doesn't matter. I can't seem to find your name on the list so I hope that you would like to reconsider. I'm having trouble with finding recruitment. I was the first official recipient of the Newsletter so I hope that someone who wanted it before me might just want to see what has changed. Sorry for driveling on like this. Chubbennaitor 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown

[edit]

There has never been a Triple Crown trophy, nor have there been any rules. It's a concept introduced by journalists - often enough that I suppose it is worth an article, though there isn't absolute consistency about what it would be. I have never seen any reference to a Constructors' Triple Crown, so I think we'd be venturing into WP:OR discussing that without a cite - interesting though the discussion might be. We'd also be opening the gates to all kinds of other extensions to the idea. Start a discussion on the talk page if you disagree strongly, though. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Hammarby IF

[edit]

The page User:Hammarby IF was deleted because there is no user registered with that name (see Special:ListUsers). (This criterion of speedy deletion policy.) If you register the name or would like the page restored and moved to an appropriate location, I'd be happy to oblige. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just waiting on you to tell me what you wanted. : - ) I've restored and moved the page to User:John Anderson/Hammarby IF and I've corrected the link on your user page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

[edit]

Proposed deletion of List of comics spin-offs

[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of comics spin-offs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

FYI, it's now an AFD. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]
  • There is still a link from the Spin-off page because no one has removed the link on that page.
  • List of Television Spin-offs hasn't been deleted because no one has proposed that it be deleted. I looked at it when I proposed the deletion of the comic book page, and most of the problems I had with the comics page aren't there. There isn't the sheer number of potential additions to the list, spin-offs are rarer, citable and don't contain as much original research. It certainly doesn't have the title/character screw-up that the comics list had. It has problems but not insurmountable ones like the comics one has.
  • As to why the page was deleted, that should be well covered in the AfD discussion.
    Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't delete the page.
  • It wasn't a bad page, it was a page that didn't - and couldn't - work properly. No amount of work was going to fix that I'm afraid. Others seemed to agree.
  • I looked at the television spin-off list when I proposed the deletion of the comic book page, and most of the problems I had with the comics page aren't there. There isn't the sheer number of potential additions to the list, spin-offs are rarer, citable and don't contain as much original research. It certainly doesn't have the title/character screw-up that the comics list had. It has problems but not insurmountable ones like the comics one has. However, you certainly can propose the deletion of that page if you think that it has the same problems that comics-page had.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flatwater Racing World Championships renaming

[edit]

I am planning on changing the Flatwater Racing World Championships to the ICF Flatwater World Championships. Any objections? Chris (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the ICF website and seeing what they actually called it. I wanted to make certain that it was called what it was supposed to be called and list it as accurately as possible. Chris (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

[edit]

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Hitler (disambiguation), it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Floorball

[edit]
You have been invited to join WikiProject Floorball. We are dedicated to improving and expanding Floorball-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in Floorball and/or your many edits to Floorball-related articles. If you would like to join, please visit the participant page, and add your name to the bottom of the list of project members.


Zadora13 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 "Standings after the race" tables

[edit]

Hi John. I have started a discussion at WP:F1 about the changes you recently made to the "Standings after the race" tables in 2009 Singapore Grand Prix, 2009 Italian Grand Prix and 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. I invite you to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nps-parka-uniform.jpg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Nps-parka-uniform.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JaGatalk 19:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello John Anderson! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 691 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Jürgen Barth - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One sponsorship liveries

[edit]

Hi John. I meant to leave a message on your talk page regarding my reversion of your edit but I got distracted and forgot to do it - apologies for that. I personally don't have strong feelings either way about whether the page should be split; I reverted your change because your original edit summary (and your comment on User:Abdul Qayyum Ahmad's talk page) suggested that you were unaware of the new page and thought the information had just been completely deleted. FYI, I've added a link at WT:F1 to the discussion you started at Talk:Formula One sponsorship liveries, to gather opinion from those who may not have the article on their watchlist. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Do you have any more edits to make before I start the merge? DH85868993 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

BMW Sauber mentions should link to Sauber, as that article is now about the Sauber team all the way from 1993 to the present day, as it was agreed by most that they are the same team. BMW in Formula One was intended as a solution to those who said that BMW's participation would be ignored if the merger took place. It was not intended as simply a new name for the BMW Sauber article, as that acheives nothing really. If you like, you could link them like this: [[BMW in Formula One|BMW]] [[Sauber]]. Please do not link them as [[BMW in Formula One|BMW Sauber]]. There is a link to the BMW article in the BMW section of the Sauber article, for those who want it. BMW were only a really manufacturer in their own right during the 1950's and 1960's, as detialed by the new article. During recent years, they simply owned an existing, established team. Thank you. - mspete93 15:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was never agreed that 2006-09 should link to BMW. You suggested it some time after the discussion had pretty much been settled. I'll raise it at WT:F1 and see what the project thinks. For now, you may as well save yourself some time and effort and leave the links as they are until there is a settlement. The whole of the old BMW Sauber article has been merged into Sauber so there is not much point in links going anywhere other than there. - mspete93 15:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, we are still showing the team as BMW Sauber, as that is what they are called, regardless of the lack of input from BMW. Links should direct to Sauber, but show as BMW Sauber until the team name is changed. This should either be achieved by [[BMW in Formula One|BMW]] [[Sauber]] or [[Sauber|BMW Sauber]]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I write, I'm saying that yes, it should link to Sauber, but it should show as BMW Sauber. That is not in question anywhere, to my knowledge. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the discussion is about. I can provide any number of sources to verify that the team is called BMW Sauber. Revert your changes, please, you are in error. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it still listed as BMW Sauber in the season article then? There is no policy to rename this team arbitrarily, going against the team itself, the FIA and all reliable sources. Again, I urge you to revert yourself. Or find this so-called consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not how we display the team name - we have no choice how to display the team name. The discussion is about which articles the name links to. That is entirely different. There has never been a discussion about changing the displayed team name to "Sauber", unless you can find it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? We don't get to change the team name. I am still waiting for you to produce the consensus where it was agreed that we do not mention BMW in the team name. It is you who is making edits without discussion, no-one else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's such a consensus for this, how come you are the only editor making this change anywhere? All the 2010 articles displayed the team name as BMW Sauber until you changed them all. Why aren't you discussing this on the relevant article talk page? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful about who you are describing as ridiculous. You have made changes to articles with no consensus, reverted in a way that suggests an edit war, and have so far failed to discuss this on the relevant talk page. I have asked you to provide evidence of this discussion where it was decided to arbitrarily "shorten" the team name of BMW Sauber, and you have so far been unable to do so. The burden is on you, since all articles displayed BMW Sauber until recently, when you changed them all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both de la Rosa's and Kobayashi's articles show the entrant/constructor as BMW Sauber. The designation of the chassis, i.e. the C29, is not at question here. In race articles, what is displayed is the constructor-engine, in this case, BMW Sauber-Ferrari. Constructor - BMW Sauber. Chassis - Sauber C29. You appear to have not noticed, but I am discussing this (currently on my own) at Talk:Sauber - where else would you like me to discuss it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant article talk pages override wikiproject talk pages, but I will highlight it at the WP. And no, making a suggestion to which nobody replies is not a consensus. Is that all you've got? There is no consensus, is there? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't - so, with no input from anyone else whatsoever, you claim a consensus? For a start, I disagree, so it's not a consensus. The consensus for my point of view lies in the fact that all articles read "BMW Sauber" until you changed them, and all outside sources refer to them as such, without exception - a fact you have not quibbled with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Sauber shows a consensus to keep the name displayed as BMW Sauber. I don't know why you did not contribute to that discussion. I have reverted the relevant articles. It also appears to be very clear that there was no consensus at any point to back up your edits, making your reverts very obstructive. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus - an unanswered suggestion on your part does not constitute a consensus, let alone one that can be used vigorously as a basis for reverting two other editors. That you then described my attitude as ridiculous is, in my opinion, very poor form. What a waste of time this all was. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has suggested that you did not have enough time to contribute to the discussion, and of course it is still open for you to contribute, but given that there was no consensus for your edits in the first place, the original versions of the articles should stand until any consensus for change is achieved, as per WP:STATUSQUO. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, the discussion is still open for you to contribute, but in the meantime, the articles should be reverted to their original versions, as per the guideline I quoted. The procedure is that if you want to make a change to the established versions, you discuss it and try to build a consensus. It is not correct procedure for you to change the articles then demand that I build a consensus for the original versions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a) If you want to make a change to the status quo, it is up to you to build a consensus once it is clear that there is resistance to your change, which there was in this case, not only from me but from the IP whom you reverted. b) There is a considerable consensus now at the wikiproject page, currently 5:0. Including the two IPs who have edited to that effect, and adding you as well, it is 7:1. In fact, nobody has agreed with you yet, and it has been two days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hiding behind anything and I'm not looking for anything. No prior discussed consensus is required, I don't know why you can't understand that. A discussion to build consensus is only required when there's a disagreement about something. We don't go around arguing the toss over every tiny thing. It was always the general practice of all editors to retain BMW in the constructor title. Everyone was happy with that, and nobody tried to change it - there is the consensus. There was no consensus for your change, and so if you can't build one, the change won't happen. If you don't read the guidelines, then it's hard for you to understand how it works, I guess. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my opinion at all. I assumed you were familiar with the guidelines. I've been here a while and I've always worked this way, because it's how editors are supposed to work. I do agree with the boldness principle but you have clearly never read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When someone reverts your change, you discuss it - you don't just keep reverting to your version as that is clearly edit-warring. You don't make your change and challenge the opposer to provide a consensus. You also don't claim that there was a consensus for your change on the project page when there patently was no such thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm sure you are trying to remain civil here. I know you thought there was a consensus, although it did take me a little while to grasp the interesting notion that you thought your unanswered suggestion on the project page constituted a consensus. It doesn't, as I am sure you are now aware. Given that you had no consensus, and I knew it, I was nowhere near an edit war, particularly as I only reverted you once on each article within a 24hr period. I accept that you thought you were right, but you don't seem to accept that you were in fact wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar enough with the discussions that go on to have been sure there was no consensus. You seem to suggest I'm lying when I say that. I said to you at the start that there was never a discussion about it, and there wasn't. I asked you to produce the consensus you said existed, but that does not mean I wasn't sure whether it existed or not. I am at least smart enough to have gone back to look for it when you said it existed. It wasn't there (anywhere), so I knew. Your unanswered suggestion absolutely does not constitute a consensus or any agreement. There was no hint that anyone agreed to it. Nowhere anywhere does any Wikipedia guideline suggest that. I am happy to leave it there, as I do not wish flog a dead horse every night. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (April)

[edit]

Welcome. – Cs-wolves(talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Norrøna

[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Norrøna

[edit]
Hello, John Anderson. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of Norrøna

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Norrøna. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norrøna. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort

[edit]

Ok, a couple of points. Firstly, all of those teams, with the possible exception of Torro Rosso and Ferrari, are commonly known as "Scuderia xxx", therefore they should sort to "Scuderia xxx". So actually I disagree with all your alterations, I just reverted the particularly odd ones. Secondly, it is bad manners to simply revert a reversion, that way revert wars lie. The established practice is WP:BRD. If you are unfamiliar with this you really should read it, as an editor of your standing really can't do what you just did without looking petulant. Pyrope 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are a general interest encyclopedia and I argue that as the word "Scuderia" is Italian most English-speaking people see the team name as one whole entity. Your choice of Bayern Munich is actually fairly poorly chosen, as not only are the team not commonly referred to as FC Bayern, they also aren't known as "Muenchen" (or München) to anyone in the English-speaking world. The football project have always been a bit odd, and I suspect that their numbers have a large percentage of non-English native speakers. Regardless, this is the discussion we should have been having before you hit undo. Pyrope 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way that BRD works and never has been. It is incumbent on the party wishing to change the status quo to justify that action. Anyway, as we seem to be the only two that it matters to I'd prefer to work it out between us than litter WP:F1 just yet. Besides, thi is a fairly esoteric point of order, rather than a world-changing deviation in policy! My point is mainly that the word "scuderia" is, for most teams, an integral part of the name. It isn't just equivalent to an English team appending "Team" to its name. The actual Italian word for "team" is "squadra" (Alfa Romeo used to use this now and again in the days of Alfa Corse.) "Scuderia" means "stable" (the equine sort) and is an affectation rather than a true description, hence it is an important part of the teams' names; names by which they are widely known even to those of us who have followed F1 since being able to focus. Pyrope 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Should have" was used because you are an established editor who has been contributing regularly for five years. This means that I assume a more than passing familiarity with the conventions and etiquette of Wikipedia. The fact that you seem unaware of BRD is surprising as it has been around for as long time. I have been on both ends of the BRD process on quite a few occasions in the past and it works well. Most importantly, it lays out in black and white how two editors with different opinions can sort things out without descending to each simply reverting the other's edit, as your logic would do. As for knowing what "scuderia" means, why then did you assert that it meant "team"? It doesn't. You chose to misrepresent a term and my charitable interpretation was that you were misinformed. If you are telling me now that your presentation of that argument was intentional then that puts a different spin on it. Pyrope 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by asking an Italian you show why detaching the word scuderia from a team's common name is problematic... you need to fully understand Italian or have a good working knowledge of the conventions of Formula One. Scuderia is an affectation that the rather aristocratic early Italian motor racing pioneers borrowed directly from horse racing (sport of kings, and all that) rather than descend to the bourgeois term squadra or another alternative. Its usage in this context isn't widespread even in Italy (take a look at Category:Italian auto racing teams), and is almost solely limited to auto racing where it is used. Take motorbikes for example: Ducati's SBK team is Ducati Corse; Aprilia use "Racing Team"; and MV Agusta, the venerable MV Agusta, they never bothered with anything beyond the company name. You are assuming that people using an English language site are just as comfortable and knowledgeable with Italian as they are in English, and that they know that Italian auto racing teams sometimes style themselves scuderia even though it doesn't mean team. Making those sorts of assumptions about the end users isn't justified for a general interest English-language encyclopedia, where we should be assuming no prior knowledge of the subject area or of any language beyond English. Pyrope 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resorting to sarcasm already? Surely you have something more impressive than that in reserve, don't you? I'm just pointing out a pattern that I can't find an exception to. If you can, please let me know. As for Ecurie, that too has been used and again I'm struggling to find examples that don't involve four wheels or hooves. Pyrope 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Hi John,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page. This would take around 20 of your time.

Thanks! Aresj (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you declined the invitation. No problem. Thank you anyhow for replying. Aresj (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (May)

[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 18:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking of "Pts" in F1 driver/team results tables

[edit]

Hi John. I notice that recently you've linked the "Pts" column heading in several F1 driver/team results tables to List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems. Are you planning to do this for all WDC drivers and teams? If so, you may care to discuss your intention at WP:F1, (a) to check that there is consensus in favour of the change (although I can't imagine why there wouldn't be) and (b) to see whether anyone else wants to help out with the task (or maybe it could even be done by a bot?) I've been through and updated every WDC driver article manually in the past and believe me, it takes a long time. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, John Anderson. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 09:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (June)

[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 18:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sauber Petronas Engineering

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sauber Petronas Engineering, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikicars.org/pl/Sauber. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, John Anderson. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Copyright_issues.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Theleftorium (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (July)

[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 22:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skåne

[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Skåne County. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The same goes for Skåne Regional Council and List of governors of Skåne County. In this case, their official names in English are clearly spelled out on their websites, and uses the form "Skåne". Please do not move articles to incorrect names without checking sources. Thank you. Tomas e (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a concensus here that the exonym Scania is used when writing about the traditional historical province with the endonym Skåne. Scania is a latin form and has been used for the province since many hundred years. When it comes to Skåne län and Region Skåne, they are administrative and municipal entities created some ten years ago. They are far too new to have got exonyms. They are almost always referred to in English using the endonym Skåne as shown here: http://www.skane.se/default.aspx?id=54721 and here http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/skane/Om_Lansstyrelsen/In+English/contact.htm. --Muniswede (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it NOW!!!!!!--83.226.154.15 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Skåne County, you may be blocked from editing. Tomas e (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of governors of Skåne County, you may be blocked from editing. Tomas e (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Skåne Regional Council, you may be blocked from editing. Tomas e (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and so on for your related disruptive editing of templates etcetera. Tomas e (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (August)

[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 15:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (September)

[edit]

--Midgrid(talk) 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mongolia national bandy team for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Mongolia national bandy team, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hungary national bandy team for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Hungary national bandy team, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary national bandy team until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Canada national bandy team for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Canada national bandy team, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada national bandy team until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Belarus national bandy team for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Belarus national bandy team, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus national bandy team until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Netherlands national bandy team for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Netherlands national bandy team, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlands national bandy team until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Russia national bandy team for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Russia national bandy team, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia national bandy team until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kazakhstan national bandy team for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Kazakhstan national bandy team, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan national bandy team until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (October)

[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skåne County

[edit]

The exonym Scania County for the Swedish administratve subdivision Skåne län is very seldom used. Google gives 98,300 hits for "Skåne County" and just 4,310 hits for "Scania County". Even the Swedish name "Skåne län" gives more hits in English then "Scania County". I have now written a section called "Endonym and exonym" in which I try to explain the different usages. --Muniswede (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (November)

[edit]

--Midgrid(talk) 00:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saab 37 Viggen. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BilCat (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be like that, you're part of it since you're the one who is reverting my changes all the time. John Anderson (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (December)

[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

[edit]
File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

Since you're already blocked on svwp I don't really see the point but rules are rules. I've asked for a block on your account here on enwp as well as the one already in place on svwp. GameOn (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

[edit]

Checkuser at Swedish Wikipedia has confirmed that you are violating sock puppetry policy, very probably as a subaccount of User:E.G.. Based on this and verification that your accounts have been used to violate multiple account practices on English Wikipedia, this account has been indefinitely blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Premier Division

[edit]

The article Premier Division has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, not notable. No updates in 2 years since guideline notice put up

While all contributions to Wikipedia 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. Львівське (говорити) 01:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey on the ice listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hockey on the ice. Since you had some involvement with the Hockey on the ice redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Anderson&oldid=1146031479"