User talk:JohnFromPinckney

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to bring discussions here from other pages, but please use a diff or quote. Please use diffs when talking about edits. If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, so you may want to watch this page. I check my watchlist regularly. I usually add talk pages to my watchlist if I comment on them. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Thank you.


Team Singapore fireworks display from Singapore Fireworks Festival 2006.jpg Happy New Year!
I wish you a Happy New Year and hope that everything goes swimmingly for you in 2012 :). Calvin Watch n' Learn 00:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This [deletion of ringtones chart][edit]

is on the Portuguese WP though. Calvin Watch n' Learn 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So? We're on the English Wikipedia. Go take a look at some of the German WP music articles; you'll have a heart attack seeing what passes for sourcing over there. The Spanish one is worse, as far as I can tell. There's a recent discussion here on en:WP about ringtones, and a couple editors chimed in against including them. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Diff WPs have different rules?! Calvin Watch n' Learn 15:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure! The pillars are the same, but think about how other guidelines are made: through consensus within the community. I'm not in the pt:WP community (and I don't speak Portuguese) so when there's a discussion about what charts to include on discographies, or whether references should be in columns or not, or whether is a reliable source, I won't be offering my invaluable advice. The Brazilians and Portuguese don't know about our discussions here on en:WP (except for those few folks who bounce back and forth).
I have edited at the German Wikipedia (and Spanish, I think), but it's tricky because I don't know all of their local rules and customs. It's kind of a re-learning process when I'm over there, because WP:DISCOGSTYLE and MOS:DASH are redlinks to them (probably). The es:WP folks do seem to have copied our WP:CHARTS page though.
So, Calvin, do you speak Portuguese? How is it that you were over at pt:WP — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Lol no I don't, but I worked out what it mean't, with regard to the chart. Calvin Watch n' Learn 16:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Politburo FL review[edit]

I've responded to you're comments at the review page. --TIAYN (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


You know you said that songs that chart in different years have to be in different tables now, do I have to change anything for S&M (song). Calvin Watch n' Learn 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes! You must, must, must:
  • Change the table heading to 2011 (from 2010-2011)
  • Change CZE week param to 21 to support peak of 8
  • Change IRL week param to 6 to support peak of 3
  • Know that I can't verify Italy at all , so I don't know when it peaked. I'd be surprised if it hit big in Italy way before the rest of Europe got it, though, (and the ref points to August) so I assume it to be 2011.
  • Know that the Korean source is likewise useless to me. I have to hack the page just to see under the overlay, and then it doesn't seem to give me an actual chart position. When in doubt (I guess) assume it's 2011. I can't prove it even charted there, though. :-(
  • Remove NLD Single Top 100 (we've got the Dutch Top 40
  • Change Scotland date param to 2011-03-12 to support peak of 3
  • Change UK R&B date param to 2011-03-05 to support peak of 1
  • Change the ref for Canada to something useful, like the page at By the way, that page says that the song that hit #1 in CAN was the remix with Britney. The regular, original song hit only #3.
  • Think about changing the "Charts" sub-section heading to "Weekly charts", since there's a "Year-end charts" sub-section, too.
  • Look on the page for duplicate refs. I see several, as refs 31 to about 45 seem to overlap with the refs 96 to 124 or so. Check into reusing the named singlechart refs up in the article body.
It appears that on all of the charts where "S&M" appeared in 2010, the song later moved up at least a little during 2011. So no table splitting necessary. The stuff I mentioned above is a bit of work itself, but that needs to be done either way. Sorry you asked? Cheers (and good luck; lemme know if you want help) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Haha. Okay thanks. I'll do it tomorrow. Calvin Watch n' Learn 00:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


Hey Pickney. Should I separate this into three charts? — Tomica1111Question Existing? 08:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, er, no: There should be five tables: three for the weekly charts, and two for the year-end charts (plus Decade-end and certs). If you don't split them, look what happens to the middle headings when you sort. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RIAA down?[edit]

Is the RIAA site working for you? I know it was hacked and taken down the other day, but reports I've read say that the site should be back up now: however, I can't access it. If it is genuinely down everywhere, this is massively incovenient. I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, no, it's not up for me at the moment, either. I've tried and both but they just time out. I hadn't heard about them getting hacked (although I can imagine the RIAA receives such attempts regularly). It would be nice if somebody would hack the site to allow title and artist parameter passing in the URLs, but leave the site up and running. I guess that'd be too much to hope for though. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

re: Proposed deletion of Rebelle[edit]

Ever head of Google? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Before I added the PROD to the article I made sure to search for other indications of notability outside the single, inadequate reference that was provided. I did indeed use Google as my search engine. I did not find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (phrase used at WP:GNG). In fact, I found almost nothing about this unfinished film. No critics have written articles about it. It isn't historically notable. It has not been widely distributed. It fetures not one single notable actor. In fact, even the director is a redlink on the article page. This is why my PROD mentioned that it failed bot WP:GNG and WP:NF.
I hope you will reread the PROD notice you deleted (I left a copy on your Talk page) and follow the links to the notability guidelines I provided. This film is not currently worth its own WP article. Now, if it wins an award at te Berlinale, then we've got something, but we don't even know if the film will be finished by then.
Finally, I'd like to say I don't appreciate your characterization of my PROD as "idiotic" in your edit summary. It feels like a personal attack to me and I hope you'll be more courteous in dealing with your fellow Wikipedians in the future.
Your question about whether I have heard of Google is hardly helpful, by the way. And if you have heard of Google you could surely use it to whip up a couple of example of notable critics' reviews of the work, or reliable, independent examination of the work underlining its notability. Currently, the article lacks this (even after your snide note here) and so you haven't dealt fulfilled what I consider your responsibility to prove notability. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
That's super! Lugnuts (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s/archive1[edit]

Can you take a look at the review page now? I've addressed you're comments. --TIAYN (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please take a look now? --TIAYN (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Does the weekly charts table need to be changed to separate year ones on Loud (Rihanna album)? Aaron You Da One 16:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If the peaks came in separate years (as the combined heading now claims) then yes. (And sorry for the long absence.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Production discographies, and ringtones[edit]

Having looked through the generally sprawling, untidy and very-difficult-to-follow The Neptunes discography, I think that it may be an idea to establish some sort of design guidelines for production discographies as well, similar to WP:DISCOGSTYLE: apart from a few exceptions, most of them are simply written as plain lists, and are completely unsourced. I'm thinking of some ideas, but if you have any suggestions, they would be appreciated.
Also, I am aware that we don't list US ringtone certifications in discographies currently. I can see why people wouldn't want them included, as it is unclear whether buying a ringtone is the same as buying an actual single, but I actually think they should be. The way I see it, a ringtone is just another format that music can be purchased as: besides, we list the "Standard" and "Digital" certifications under the same "RIAA" heading, as if they're the same sort of certification, when they're two completely different formats. UPDATE: Please ignore the crossed out bit: have read about this at the talk page of WP:DISCOGSTYLE. I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That's just what I think, anyway. If I've missed some obvious logic here, please tell me. Thanks! I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 14:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


How can I lock an Article Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelove (talkcontribs) 18:30, 26 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Only editors with administrator rights can change page protection. See WP:PP for details. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FL Thanks[edit]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial efforts that has contributed to the recent WP:FL promotion of Kanye West discography

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)FL Thanks

You're still here![edit]

I haven't crossed paths with you for a while. Thought you might want to be a guinea pig for {{BillboardURLbyName}}. While working my way through the last Billboard change, I figured that a couple of templates to help discography editors could be useful. {{BillboardChartNum|chart name}} will return the integer number associated with that BillboardChart, and {{BillboardURLbyName}} will return a URL for that chart for that artist, i.e. {{BillboardURLbyName|artist=Shakira|chart=Hot 100}} will generate The chart name mapping is documented at {{BillboardChartNum}}. If you want to have real fun, peek under the hood of {{BillboardID}}: I'm truly ashamed of myself.

There's no fancy ref formatting or anything: just the raw URL. That way there shouldn't be any arguments about appearance to keep people from using them, and I can get them all to autoupdate the next time Billboard changes everything.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Santana[edit]

Hello JohnFromPinchney,

since you commented at the lists's first nomination I thought you might be interested in reviewing it again against the criteria. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Latin artists certifications.[edit]

Hi JohnFromPinckney,

I saw that you erase the info about Paulina Rubio's certifications, but I think that the infos/sources were not unreliable. Since organizations like IFPI and RIAA didn't exist in most of latin countries, some wikipedian users add links from reputable magazines and journals to latin artists articles. It's that way for most of them and till now we didn't have problem with that, and that's why all that info you erase was there.--88marcus (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Wow! I feel there must have been a mistake in the Academy's voting, but thank you very much! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for your efforts at Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country. Unfortunately, it will be overwritten tomorrow. I wrote a demo modification to Magnus' tab2wiki at that adds headers and scopes, but it doesn't get used. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Rexx, I hadn't noticed that. <sarcasm>Fortunately, it's a small table and didn't take any time at all to modify.</sarcasm>. Best regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I did the same thing on the original article with the same result. Although it was somewhat easier using an external text editor to do the find-and-replace using regular expressions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Roger Moore Edit.[edit]

Hello. No; but I've the record itself, in my hand, right now. A Google search should easily authenticate it, if you were to use 'Images'. Sorry, I don't have Editorial abilities enough to add it any other way, into the History. If you know how, and should care too, fine, please go ahead. If not, it's a great pity that others shall be deprived of the information. Ah well, I've tried. At least it's now in the Editorial History, should somebody stumble across it. I hope you do know how too,though. Thanks anyway. Heath St John (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Heath St John: You can usually find a release on Discogs and that shows Moore's release. The picture sleeve can be attested by looking at a sites offering vinyl for sale. I've restored your addition and added two references. The second one shows an image with the "Louisa" misspelling. --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the interest, and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks to that reinstatement you made, taking the Reader to Discogs, and the Roger Moore pictures, I noticed the two on there, a few minutes ago, I'd not seen, yesterday: I've., 'Snow White's, and 'Aladdin'. I added those on the R. Moore Page, just now, but don't have the knowledge to give a Reference No., doing for them, what you did for the other single, yesterday; that is, taking people to the Discogs' Site, and the pictures of them, there; could you do that for everyone, please ? Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't trouble to try and help me, with that favour I hoped you might do, as expressed, above. I'm afraid your flattering reinstatement of my research on Discogs, re. Roger Moore's Recording History, was removed again. Anyway, I've added a Discussion in the matter, in the Section about how the Page could be improved, at the bottom, by Edit History; perhaps you;d like to visit that, and add some comments of your own ? I hope so. Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania[edit]

Could you please advise OneMoreByte about the issue with their edits? They are a new user and came to my talk page for advice, but as you reverted you're probably in a better position. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I do wish to change back two edits (1) I have found origonal evidence (and will cite) that the Penn Museum was originally founded as the Free Science and Art museum and (2) the main line Protestant organization could not have moved to Houston Hall in mid 1880s as Houston Hall was not finished being built until 1898. I will supply cite for your review. I am ry confident about item (2) and less so re item (1). I look forward to reading if you agree or disagree with me. OneMoreByte (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the url you added here specifically says that, in 1899, "The Museum opens as the Free Museum of Science and Art" after originally opening in 1887. I guess it all depends on what sources you bring. I don't know anything about the Houston Hall thing you're talking about. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been to Houston Hall literally 100s of times and know about it and know it was not built until late 1890s so the way I reported reflects such knowledge and the hyperlinks take you to Houston Hall that reflects and supports the info I wrote. OneMoreByte (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Houston Hall (University wof Pennsylvania) OneMoreByte (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Penn Museum was founded in 1887 in College Hall that was built in 1871/1872 and could not move to Houston Hall until after it was built. I did provide citations for what I wrote OneMoreByte (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you delete John Heisman (for whom the trophy for best college Football player in nation is named due to lack of cite? or for another reason? OneMoreByte (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I asked you a question about List of University of Pennsylvania in very first active talk section. Do I need to ask it here? OneMoreByte (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is better, although I think you could have started a new section at the bottom, as that's where I look for new comments. The top-most thread is the oldest, and dates back to 2011. This one is from last September, and I figured that discussion had ended. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted the question below; "I am not sure this is correct place to ask this question but it appears to be. Mr. Schaeffer is worthy of his own stand alone wikipedia entry. If I add such, would you then object to placement in the List? Of course, I will have to learn how to create a standalone Wikipedia entry and have not yet figured that out." OneMoreByte (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Schaeffer was an Olympic athlete and partly responsible for creation of FritoLay and other worthy actions as a lawyer and business person. OneMoreByte (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The name Schaeffer sounds familiar, but I don't know what you're talking about, exactly. Was that a name I removed from a Penn article? Which one? When? I can't find any trace in my editing history. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing mistakes I made Kate at night. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The 1807 Benj. Rush lectures ticket was placed in location so it was within discussion of edifice that only existed from 1801 to 1829 or so. I think it should be out back in original location and ask you to think about what I write above and see if you agree. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, OneMoreByte.
First of all, when you add a new entry in the middle of my talk page, I am unlikely to find it right away. I look for new messages at the end, meaning the bottom, as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially WP:BOTTOMPOST (q.v.).
Secondly, it would help if you included a diff when you start a new topic so that the person you're addressing (or the entire community, if you're on an article's talk page) has some clue of what you are talking about. For example, it seems you are talking about this edit on University of Pennsylvania (notice the links, esp. on "this edit").
Thirdly, I have no idea what you are seeing or complaining about, because on my viewing device, the image of the ticket is two full paragraphs below where I would expect it to be, if it's to accompany the text "Among the classes given in 1807...Rush, etc." The reason is, once again, there are Way Too Many images lining the side of that article. There are SIX images in that section, and only two paragraphs. It can't be aligned unless the viewport is made extremely narrow. But I see you are working in a mobile environment, which would explain your expectations of alignment where desktop users (like myself) see none.
Fourthly, I did not make any significant change to the positioning of the ticket image, I merely moved it out of the middle of the paragraph where, like so many others, it had been carelessly dropped without regard for the visual effect. In this case, it was merely keeping the final sentence from connecting with the rest of its paragraph; other images had been pasted in the middle of sentences. It seems you do not pay much attention to the results of your endeavors, either with the Show preview function nor by simply scrolling through the whole page after publishing. I have now moved the image from the end of the previously broken paragraph to the beginning of it. See if that satisfies you.
I would like to be more friendly and helpful to you, but sometimes I am grumpier than I wish to be. (Today is a grumpy day.) Your complaining to me here about image alignment when you have, yourself, contributed to the impossibility of coordinated illustrations is rather irritating. (Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your openness to discussion!) I wish you would look at the effect you are having on the article and whether we need more material, or a better handling of the material we have. But possibly you have no more idea how the page looks to desktop users than I do about mobile readers. Personally, I can't imaging trying to do anything but the simplest of minor typo corrections of a smart phone. Anything more than that would quickly drive me way past grumpy and into insane/ballistic territory. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know that 8mages can only be placed at start of a section. I have been placing photos where they are referenced. Please point me to rules where images must be placed. I thought it was your preference. On phones it looks better to do as I do but did check out a PC recently and now better understand why you make changes but want to know Wikipedia policy. Thanks again for your help. OneMoreByte (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Improper and Harassing Editing[edit]

I added truthful edits to two web sites concerning elected officials, supported by citations. JohnFromPickney improperly edited those comments. This violates the rule of consensus and this editor is exercising unilateral control. It also reflects positive political bias trying to overcome truthful content. This politicizes content - as it skews away from one political point of view to another. This, again, renders these supposedly open forums inherently corrupt and calls into question the entire nature of wikipedia as not being true to its own terms and conditions and advertised premise. I'd like the behavior to stop and for my edits to remain unmolested. MichaGuy (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocking for GWAR[edit]

I'm not sure why you decided an editor with four prior warnings (all of them recent) for GWAR should go from a final warning to a level 3 warning.[1] I've asked for a block. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't really expect any improvement in behavior, and in fact, I'm surprised they stopped after only three articles today. I rather expected to throw more warnings, in increasing severity, at them in a short time. My impression is, when some time has passed since the last warnings (as here, from the previous month, 10 days ago), we're supposed to start at the beginning (level 1) again. I didn't start there; it was just too ridiculous. Apparently, I've misunderstood/forgotten how it's supposed to work. Thanks for arranging the block. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


You understandably deleted Susan N. Stevenson due to vite being wrong. I tried to fix the cute and provided 2. One appears broken and I ask you to help me delete or did broken cite. OneMoreByte (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't figured out what you're talking about yet, but please pay attention where you are editing on my Talk page; I pulled this text out of the end of 2011 above. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest[edit]

Apples, Mainz-Finthen.jpg

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I was editing from the article, Delta Air Lines

According to the largest airline by fleet size. The website is kinda confused, and some says better source needed because some of Delta Air Lines fleets has been retired now. And still, I'm confused too about the website and Wikipedia page, Delta Air Lines fleets. Which of these two are understandable or not confused? I'm from the Philippines so please understand my grammar. Thank you! Apple 3002 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And also, according to largest airline fleet in the world. . It's says 775, and their Delta Air Lines fleet, 779. Apple 3002 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! As you edit in Delta Air Lines fleet size, please use the calculator and add all in service of Delta Air Lines fleets. If you have any concern, please add the discussion of User talk:Marc Lacoste. Thank you! Corner2002 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


1. It may not be equitable for you to delete only one name on a list of name for not having a ref, while leaving all the many others on the list.

2. Also, it may be more helpful to the project - especially where the underlying article clearly has supporting refs - to merely tag all (not some ) offending names. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1D36:6FB6:FDDA:9EB2 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

List of countries by intentional homicide rate[edit]

Hello, I take the dates from this site, sorry I dont know how if I put the site correct. Its a Brazilian site that have the numbers since 2011 and the 2020 numbers are 43.892 with the rate for 100.000 habitants is 20.89. Tobetto (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

FTR: apparently in response to this edit. Thanks, Tobetto. The problem is, that page is sourced to UNODC (see ref links in the caption at the top of that table); if you think the figures reported by Globo/G1 are better than the UN's you need to persuade people of that at the Talk page. Saúde, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Hello, as you edit in Delta Air Lines, please follow in Delta Air Lines fleet Wikipedia page, try to add all current in service fleets. It all total of 764. Corner2002 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't particularly care what is on Delta Air Lines fleet or any other articles (although that article did help me find the new source I used for the fleet size at Delta Air Lines); when I edit Delta Air Lines, I try to maintain the integrity of the Delta Air Lines article. Maybe, if I muster the time and interest, I will go over to Delta Air Lines fleet and try to examine and adjust the sources there. But in terms of sourcing for Delta Air Lines, the content of Delta Air Lines fleet is of no importance. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for your kind response! :DD Corner2002 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey it's me. I was wondering, in Don Mueang International Airport, someone edited it and add historical on Airlines and Destinations section. What do you think? Can I remove it or no? Thanks for your response! Corner2002 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think such a table would be unique on Wikipedia, and with good reason (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The clincher for me, though, is that that's a whoole lot of "information" but without a single usable source. I would delete the entire "Historical" section as an indiscriminate heap of, um, stuff. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah.. I agree with you! Corner2002 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

About removal of citations on Lil Tecca[edit]

Greetings, John! I have noticed your revert action on the page Lil Tecca. I have proposed my opinions on WikiProject Discographies' talk page, the opinion is stated as Point 5. I think that tracks and albums which already have an according page do not need citation, because the refs are already cited in its according page and the citation in discography reduce readability. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for writing here, Jim. As I also wrote there, I think each page should be independently verifiable. A reader shouldn't have to click around to other pages and search for reference citations there, guessing which ones might support the details they're questioning. Unfortunately, I see a lot of contributors disregarding this principle. And I don't know how to resolve this disagreement. Face-sad.svg — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, lots of editors ignore the principle. I consider we should add an additional column to the table. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Add picture or removed some pictures?[edit]

Hi. I saw Red Flavor, adding some pictures in Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminals section. So, is it okay to add more picture or removing it? Thanks for your response! Corner2002 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals[edit]

Why you insert in this page the MDY date template in this page. Hi think that this format date is nonsense and not suitable for this page. Dr Salvus (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dr Salvus. I believe you are talking about my edit here. As I tried to indicate in my edit summary, MOS:DATEFORMAT tells us that only two formats are acceptable for general use; 2 September 2001 or September 2, 2001. Consistency within an article is important, and dates already present in the article (e.g., February 11, 2021) used mdy. Further, the MDY format was established some time ago (I said six months ago, but 18 June was some 8½ months ago). MOS:DATERET tells us we should retain the existing format, so I only tried to establish consistency (away from some yyyy-mm-dd), not change anything. If you think we should change it based on "strong national ties to the topic", we can do that, but maybe you should bring it to the Talk page first and see if anyone objects to DMY. I'd certainly have no problem with that. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


Hello! I’m new to Wikipedia & I don’t believe I have the @username: down because it didn’t seem to link to your profile. I was wondering why what I added to Dan Schneider’s page wouldn’t be considered interesting, also why is a video of him saying it directly not a credible source? Let me know what you think! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Elvisisalive95. I don't know what you mean by "link to your profile", so I can't help you fix whatever you feel is broken. Maybe you want {{ping|JohnFromPinckney}} instead of @? But I've already replied to you at Talk:Dan Schneider. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

List of University of Pennsylvania people[edit]

I added Browne to the Mayor section as he is only listed on IS congress section. Why can't you do both? OneMoreByte (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, partly because List of University of Pennsylvania people is already unusably long. Charles Browne is already listed as Congressman, which I consider to be the greater achievement. And what good does it do readers to have multiple identical entries on the same person? How does it help editors to have multiple identical entries with multiple identical (or worse: not quite identical) reference citations? We should be weeding out this page, not adding huge amounts of material into it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I now see you answered me. Is your position the position of Wikipedia rule. Of so I will abide. Personally I find it helpful to see the people in each category as I want to know how m any Penn people served as a Mayor. OneMoreByte (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, @OneMoreByte: Well, there's no paragraph (that I know of) that says people can't be listed multiple times on the same page (although I do think that's silly); it's more my interpretation of the guidelines on Wikipedia. Personally, I don't think it's that important to know how many alumni over 2-1/2 centuries became mayor because, for one thing, mayor isn't such a big deal, and for another, mayor of New York or Chicago is one thing, but mayor of Oconto (pop. 4513) or Hampton (pop. 1401) is hardly that notable.
And again, as I said above, the article is already impossibly long. The page length (in bytes) is currently 355,901, which is why it has the {{Very long}} at the top of the page. The longest list on all of Wikipedia is only 423,235 bytes long, and that includes full references and (I believe) counts photographs as well. We should be trying to make it concise, or at least improving the reference citations for the content we already have, not adding to the list or expanding tangential details of the individual entries. (It's enough to know somebody was a baseball player and senator; we don't need to list their batting averages and election results.) Readers can get the details by clicking through to the linked articles.
Wikipedia:Article size addresses the issue of page length, although it focuses more on prose articles than lists, but the section WP:SIZERULE says > 100 kB → Almost certainly should be divided, which tells me a list more than three times the size is plenty long, and we should endeavor to shorten the thing, or at least avoid unnecessary increases in length (as with repetition of entries as you suggest).
And remember: we want people visiting Wikipedia with smart phones and lousy connectivity to be able to load, read and enjoy our articles. A huge, cumbersome page works against that goal. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I now understand your position. I disagree in that Those who take time to read the list are alumni who love the details. I happen to be more impressed with those who take on being a Mayor of a small municipality. In many ways it is more pure what they are doing. They are mayors to do public service and not for power or prestige. I have to think more about your and my position to decide whether I wish to debate more. Thanks for taking the time to educate me. OneMoreByte (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for being slow on getting import of having prior Wikipedia entries added to list. I am in process of creating my own very 1st Wikipedia entry for Jasper Yeates Brinton. I have done research and have five different sources. I have successfully posted on my Wikipedia sandbox and have tried to post as a draft. I hope to hear back by next week what mistakes I made so I can fix them as I try to do with your comments/changes. OneMoreByte (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Penn People.[edit]

If a ln entry has multiple roles, can you place the person in each of the roles. For example. Charles Browne was a I S Congressman and a Mayor. I listed him in bother categories with ball info. After you objected I stripped out Mayor in Congress entry and Congress on Mayor entry? Is there an official Wikipedia rule in such? Or is just your preference? Thanks for educating me. OneMoreByte (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't remove mention of the various achievements for the people when they are listed in different sections. The article is a list of notable people, not a list of separate achievements by alumni. See my more detailed answer in the pre-existing thread just above. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


Why are you deleting adds to persons lists (whose article clearly show they belong), rather than adding a cite needed ref? Especially, when the person is not a living person? I wonder if that improves the project. --2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's my experience that a citation needed tag will stay around forever. It's ugly, and so its presence doesn't improve the project. On the other hand, when somebody adds a name but gets reverted right away, then that editor may be still around, may notice the reversion, and may, then, immediately add the needed reference. Which does help the page in question and therefore the project. I guess you're talking about an article like List of people from California, and the happy outcome is that your response was to re-add the entry, with a ref, exactly the great behavior I was hoping for. Thanks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I think its not proper behavior, to treat longstanding uncited material better than new text. That is perhaps more deserving - as it has a cite in the article itself. I just happened to see that that was deleted, but don't generally see what happens w my old edits. Also, when bored, I look for things like "uncited" to address them, by a search. To address them one way or another. I just did that today with a dozen articles (you can see some in my current edit history - just look for "d" per "tag"). That may happen more than you realize. Also, in the list area, as you probably know practice and rules are diverging greatly. The only way you will get practice to shift is I think to delete all uncited people in the lists. Which would be fair - you would not be discriminating unfairly, and against those where people had the least time to fix them. 2603:7000:2143:8500:20B8:E841:C518:EB06 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
BTW, you seem really experienced, and rule oriented. I have a question. I have been running into people these days, sometimes one on a page, sometimes more, that do not seem to be inclined to follow rules as written. But just make up their own. Or say their judgment is, for example, to tag an article as x, when I dont think it is subjectively. How best to address this, when they are unyielding? Especially when they seem to call in fellow friends to support them - but I think an objective view would be otherwise? It's a real annoyance, at best. Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:20B8:E841:C518:EB06 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


"exactly the great behavior I was hoping for"

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality work for tables, discographies, filmographies, telling people what they must, must, must do, for promoting accessibility where you see it missing, for thinking "naawww, let's avoid rude stereotypes", - John, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2555 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda, I appreciate this, and your other work, too! Alles Gute und weiter so! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Danke. Es gibt viel zu tun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals 2[edit]

I would like to know if you have continuously proposed cancellation because I also had the article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France in peer review? DrSalvus (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no. I proposed once the withdrawal of your request for Peer Review the Overseas teams article here way back on 25 February 2021, because you had subsequently started a second PR, that one for the Coppa Italia list, and it was already getting responses. You should have only one at a time, so I suggested to you that you withdraw that request. You finally did that yesterday, although you did it incorrectly. Please see the linked, step-by-step explanations in my edit summaries as I tried to correct your errors. (There was another leftover template, which I missed, and which GamerPro64 kindly deleted for us.)
I repeatedly reverted your edits regarding further PR requests for List of Coppa Italia finals because you repeatedly did it wrong. Incorrectly. Hai sbagliato. Every time. Ogni volta. You have, nevertheless, manually created Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2, but once again, you did not follow the instructions. I am sorry to say this, but you seem genuinely incapable of following any of the procedural instructions here on English Wikipedia.
I have been trying to clean up after you, although it is hard to keep up, and I have tried to educate you as to your mistakes, but there are so many, and I have become tired of it. It does not seem as though you are learning anything. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for causing you problems. Thanks for explaining the errors. Believe me, I was doing the procedures correctly but suddenly my cell phone battery ran out. I understood everything I should have done DrSalvus (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Full stop[edit]

In my opinion we don't need to put a full stop in the aggregate score row in the List of Coppa Italia finals. See the article List of UEFA Super Cup finals, there are not full stops in the aggregate score lines. Dr Salvus 09:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question of opinion; it's a matter of the rules of English. Sentences get periods as terminal punctuation. And I have fixed that other article, which also had it wrong; thanks for the pointer. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals 3[edit]

Hi, since last time you weren't clear, could you give me the list again of the reasons why List of Coppa Italia finals didn't become an FL? Dr Salvus 21:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to draw a deep breath before I start, because I see you are completely missing the point, and missing it so thoroughly and adamantly, that I wonder if you will make much progress here.
I am not the person who maintains The Big List of reasons some article didn't make FL. Star Mississippi is not that person. There is no such person. As Bilorv quite clearly and patiently explained on your Talk, the reasons any list is promoted or not promoted are aggregated in the FLC nominations. They accumulate from all the reviewers who come to look at a nominated page. You are the person as nominator who should look at the reviewers' notes and decide if or how you want to adapt the article in response.
Now, here's the big thing. Bilorv specifically advised you not to continue to ignore editors' feedback. That was less than an hour ago. And now you have posted here, asking for the FL reasons (which I don't have), totally ignoring Bilorv's feedback. This is not the approach which leads to success.
I strongly, fervently, urgently, adamantly and emphatically (whichever terms translate to Italian most clearly) urge you to confine yourself to reading our articles (presumably about football, or Italy, or Italian football, or sport) and noticing how they are written, looking for and correcting spelling errors, adding or improving references to reliable sources where you can, and, as you go, pay attention to the feedback you get. Your changes may get reverted; find out why. You may get messaged on your Talk page; be civil and interact with the other editors. You may not understand some argument or some process; ask politely what was meant. The important thing, I think, is that you learn to listen, as that's a key part of communication, critical to the collaborative process.
Thanks for behaving in such a calm way in all your contributions I have seen so far. Many others could learn from your example! I hope you will take my comments here in the constructive way I have intended them. Happy editing, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I must agree with John here Dr_Salvus. Where I wanted you to refer to John was his helpful notes on your page at User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Following_WP_procedures where he explained the process that goes into featured content including the steps that need to be followed. Dr Salvus, if you're not going to worry about featured content until December (in your own words. I suggest we need a longer timeline personally), you do not need to understand now why your article didn't make it, but if you have questions after reading the feedback because something isn't clear, you can ask the person who reviewed it. That was not me, John or Bilorv, although I'm happy to try and answer questions about other areas if I can. If you go anywhere near the featured content, which I would not advise, I think you should just observe and see what content gets promoted and what doesn't and learn from those. As John said, work on content without regard to whether it is promoted. Learn what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and what isn't. You've made some good AfD noms in working with Spiderone on Italian footy. Keep doing that. Featured content is important to wikipedia, but not every editor needs to work on it. You, specifically, do not need to work on it. StarM 01:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: It seems that I ignore the feedback since I am not a native speaker and I understand it the wrong way Dr Salvus 07:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Which is what lead to the ANI report. A certain degree of skillset is required to edit the English wikipedia and you may not have that yet. That's OK. I certainly can't say more than I cani non mangiano il cioccolato in Italian (thanks Duolingo), so I couldn't edit there. StarM 13:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: Hi have a lot of competences about footy, especialy in Italy. Does that mean I can't edit English Wikipedia? Dr Salvus 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: you're welcome to edit here. You said that you struggle to follow the information provided due to English being your second language. If that's the case and you continue to persist with attempting areas where you struggle, and if you don't follow the guidance given by many, many editors, you will likely end up back at WP:ANI and blocked. StarM 16:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: I understand the moral of the story: Stay away from the GA, FA, FL and DYK until I acquire a better English. Dr Salvus 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have decided to move away from the English Wikipedia. It is not an "April Fool", I will study better the negative and positive feedback I have received, the discussion WP: ANI and something else. Dr Salvus 23:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note. I'm sorry you're feeling discouraged and I hope you do not feel we chased you away with pitchforks and torches. Do come back when you're ready, and just take it slowly for a while. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals 4[edit]

This year's Coppa Italia final will be played in Reggio Emilia. But perhaps it is better to add this detail after the final for many reasons. Dr Salvus 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I see the matter you raised has been handled by someone who was online at the time. Please always feel free to reach out as I'm happy to help. I would have reacted the same if I'd seen it. StarM 12:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Star. Also mailed another admin who was more recently active but I had no idea what admins were supposed to do. Now I see (some of it). Be well! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


Thanks for all this. I am sitting here chortling – I hadn't realized that "bar" was just a bad translation of "beam" so I was conjuring up quite different pictures of (very drunk) people dragging themselves onto the bar, presumably from the floor ... sheesh. Makes a lot more sense now. Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I pictured the kind of thing guys mount in a doorway of their apartment so they can do chin-ups and inversion boot exercises. Face-smile.svg That didn't quite mesh either. Happy editing,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes, those! I had forgotten those. And then their friend puts a video on social media in which they collapse suddenly. Gosh. Thanks for another bizarre image! Cheers and happy editing to you too DBaK (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't ignore me.[edit]

I answered your question on the Talkpage of the "Native Americans of the United States" Wikipedia page and you ignored my response. Why? Epictrex (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you ignore what I wrote? I said I didn't know about the topic, and I still don't. And I am not in a position to evaluate books I do not have next to me and check citations I can't find online about a topic in which I am not well-educated. In any case, I'm just a volunteer here and turn my limited attention to topics in unpredictable ways. You should not expect that your fellow editors drop what they're doing to respond to you. And I certainly didn't ignore your response; in fact, I reformatted it to make it more useful.
Be patient; somebody may come along and respond at any minute. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I said that you ignored me. I misspoke. I misunderstood. I do understand what you are saying, and I do understand that people get busy. Also, I know that these sources aren't the most accessible. Also I did not ignore what you wrote, since I answered your question with those two citations. Again, I am sorry for my false accusation of you ignoring me and my choice of words. I misspoke and I misunderstood the situation. Have a good day. -Epictrex

Star Wars: The Vintage Collection[edit]

I noticed you deleted info I recently added to the page. Here are links to pre-orders for the items I added that you deleted on various toy ordering websites. They are all reputable and reliable sources.

Vintage Collection Death Star Droid

Vintage Collection Luke Skywalker (Endor)

Vintage Collection Tusken Raider

Vintage Collection pre-orders

Vintage Collection ARC Trooper Echo

Vintage Collection Offworld Jawa

Official announcement

Official live-stream video from Hasbro themselves regarding the announced items you deleted http://youtube/v_F177wQZOY — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBrett78 (talkcontribs) 16:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DarthBrett78, thanks for responding to my note. In the future, please sign your posts on talk pages, using four tildes (~~~~). I have added a signature for you above.
I'm not sure how reliable these sources are for use at Star Wars: The Vintage Collection, but at least they're something, which is more than we have now. (And apart from the fact that YouTube is often not an acceptable source, I can't even open the page you linked to so I can assess it. That doesn't make it more acceptable. ;-) ) But of course, they don't need to be added here, on my talk page, but in the actual article. I have made what I hope is a clearer statement at the article talk page, and I hope you will use these and whatever other sources you can find to re-add the content I've removed. Further discussion about sourcing for that article should occur there, at its talk page. Regards — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In The End: There's Always a Disney God[edit]

Hello, I saw your talk page comments in In The End: There's Always a Disney God. Agreeing to what you said prior to the recent edit request, I would suggest draftifying the page while asking to make it vet through AFC as its almost obvious COI, also the language of the article is promotional where the notability of the mini series is questionable. I didn't draftify it on my own as I noticed you have taken multiple actions on the page and an edit request is there after some failed attempt to remove the COI tag. But since the page isn't reviewed by any NPP, draftification would be the right thing to do, if you ask me. Stay Safe. Chirota (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the page was rejected once in AfC once. Chirota (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Chirota. I've been wondering what to do about that article as it seemed almost non-notable to me, and is an obvious COI case. The notability I was willing to grant it was based on the claim that it was Emmy-nominated, which, it turns out, it never really was (according to the one source). The thing is, I don't know how to get it draftified (oh, look: there's WP:DRAFTIFY!). Okay, I've got some reading to do.
And as for the AfC: that's a different version and (for some reason) was started two weeks after she created the current article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
No Problem. The series may be notable, but its better to leave that to be judged by an AFC reviewer when it is a case of obvious COI. If you are finding trouble getting it done, I can do it. For draftification, you may use this script, and yes, the cases when it can be used is detailed here in WP:DRAFTIFY. Chirota (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me[edit]

Hello. I admit I was wrong to ignore your feedback at List of Coppa Italia finals' peer review two months ago. Now, I've understood what I did wrong. Thank you for explaining my error. I shouldn't ignore it and I apologize for that error. Dr Salvus 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, Dr Salvus, I accept your apology and hope everything is going better for you now. Happy editing, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourced additions[edit]

Can you explain how you are fine with previous entries (which is 99% of the page) being unsourced? I constantly see it on these list of people pages and it's highly hypocritical to me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Dissident, thanks for asking. You are no doubt talking about List of people from California‎. In fact, I am very much not fine with previous entries being unsourced. I have only a limited amount of time to devote to Wikipedia and I almost never get around to sourcing lists like this (even much, much shorter ones). I would (secretly! Shhh!) like to go and delete every unsourced name from this list (and the one for Houston, the one for Atlanta, etc.) and then insist that each and every readdition be properly, reliably sourced or suffer immediate reversion. Realistically, though, I'm sure I'd never get away with that.
So we have many big lists, mostly unsourced, about which I can do little. Except: reject new additions of unsourced content, in the hopes that the person who just added whatever-it-was will still be around, will quickly notice that their edit wasn't accepted (and see and understand why), then re-add the material with citations. In this case it seems to have worked. And I thank you for your (extra) effort! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney, fair enough and thanks for responding. It wouldn't have been reverted at all if I had simply added the citations in the first place. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Face-smile.svg But I think we both know: sometimes we get sloppy around here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Albania Volleyball Men's National Team[edit]

Stop deleting my progress i did.

The Albanian mens did qualify three times for the Eueopean Championship and once for the World Cup in 1962 stop doing this thats unfair me as an Albanian i know more about sports then you as an Australian. Xonilatifi25 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I'm as much an Albanian as I am an Australian. And I didn't know your nationality (nor is it important).
I'm sorry about reverting your work, but it can't be used here if it's not verifiable (which means, it's not exactly "progress"). Find some reliable sources for what you want to add, then we'll be making progress. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop changing the Sports in Albania post[edit]

Stop doing it without proving me or wikipedia wrong. Xonilatifi25 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This and the previous thread are referring to Sports in Albania. Any changes additions you make there requires reliable sources. The onus is on you to "prove" your additions are "right", or at least, verifiable. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals 5[edit]

The source I've indicated is unnecessary. The source 2 will update the final soon Dr Salvus 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Salvo, I don't know what you mean. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The match is over and Juve won 2-1 against Atalanta. Since this is a list, I don't think it's necessary to include the source I listed in the page history. Source #2 is a soccer site and I used that source for the listing. Unfortunately , the site I pointed you to has not yet updated the result of the final. The solution could be the following: wait for the source to update the result. Dr Salvus 21:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Being a list doesn't mean it shouldn't be properly sourced. Remember, the reviewers were demanding reference citations from you earlier during the FL work. Of course a source is necessary. So yes, the right solution is as you say: wait. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Now Mediocre Legacy has put the source and I thank him. When RSSSF updates the list, the new source'll be no longer needed. Dr Salvus 22:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's the way it should be. Remember, we're in no hurry here. If there are no sources beyond what you saw on television, it's not right to add it. But all is well now, so no worries.
And congratulations; you must be very happy about Juventus winning! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sports in Albania[edit]

Could you pleas stop controlling me all the time. We need to agree on one term if you cant deny the success Albania have had dont stop deleting posts and Albania won the Balkan youtu Championship an important championship twice but i may see your racism towards Albania it still dosent change the success they have as an Sporting nation and you cant deny that period!! Xonilatifi25 (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I can deny anything that doesn't have adequate citations of reliable sourcing. Furthermore, I absolutely reject your accusations of racism. Stop with the name-calling and blaming of others. If you have good sources, your editions (at Sports in Albania or anywhere else) will probably be kept; if you don't, please don't add anything. It's that simple. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Xonilatifi25 please use reliable sources and stop personalizing content disputes, or you will be blocked. If the content is not sourced, it will be removed. You are treading perilously close to a partial block from that page. StarM 14:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if it's hard work, but survivalcraft was done in C # not java[edit]

Remember me? The one that you reversed the changes in Survivalcraft, First, The game is in C# and "No Engine", Engine was apparently created from scratch, Sources? Tell me about "Game is writen in Java" sources, but if you want sources, you have to get the source code of the game with dnspy, I ALREADY TRUSTED THIS PAGE, BUT IT WAS WRONG, In a nutshell, misinformation, And the other changes were clear that it was theories, I seem to be giving trouble, but all I said are facts, Sorry about anything, I'm new in Wikipedia Rafael831 (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the title got the wrong translation, but just ignore it Rafael831 (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Black Dog cover reversion[edit]

I put a comment in my edit on List of cover versions of Led Zeppelin songs referring to the Hot 100, which lists the appropriate songwriting credits in the respective entries for the 1987 version. Any suggestions on how to apply that? I'm not sure linking to the Hot 100 chart(s) would be the right thing to do. Mapsax (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You're talking about this edit, I believe. There were actually several reasons I reverted that: one is that the band, NewCity Rockers, is so non-notable we don't (currently) have an article on it, so adding their supposed cover wouldn't be appropriate. Another is that you provided no reference citation to a reliable source. Mentioning "per Billboard Hot 100" in a hidden HTML comment doesn't qualify; firstly, readers don't see HTML comments, and I think mobile editors (forced to use Visual Editor, if I'm not mistaken) never see them either. Secondly, "per Billboard Hot 100" is extremely vague; how can anyone check that source to verify the cover? A magazine issue, date, page number, etc., would be the minimum for a hard copy, and if an online source is used, I'd expect a valid URL (along with the other citation info). If you don't have a working URL (and from 1987, knowing Billboard, you probably don't), then info from a paper magazine is what you'd need. But again, if the band is non-notable, the ref citations don't really matter. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. First, there is a working URL for just about every Hot 100 via American Radio History, which I thought was likely common knowledge among WP editors who edit popular music pages, but apparently not – I should have heeded WP:NOTBLUE so I concede that. Second, the notabiility of the band in question is debatable – no, they don't have their own article, but they did chart with a commercial single, so, barring any restriction from any respective WP project criteria, I'd say it's a toss up. Notability has also been implied through a red link elsewhere on WP which is why I made mine red. In any case, at the risk of invoking WP:OTHER, there are other entries in the article for bands without their own articles; the intro says "Only officially released recordings by notable artists are included – the list does not include bootleg or unrecorded live performances, or any unreleased demo recordings", implying that if it's not a demo or live only that it's permissible.
I won't re-revert but I will put a note on the article's talk page with my live sources. I usually do that in cases like this but I thought I had sufficient info. Mapsax (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Starship Troopers[edit]

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the US)". I don't see a problem with the wording of "the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia." in my edit. The statement excludes any back and forth about US vs U.S. and I see no harm in using it. Almost all of the instances in the article use the format "U.S." Cuprum17 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Cuprum. In your first edit to Starship Troopers you simply changed one instance of "US" to "U.S.", which edit, when it came up on my watchlist, I recognized as being against WP:US. In fact, the affected sentence ended and a war between an alliance of the U.S., the UK and Russia against the "Chinese Hegemony". Because we're talking about the UK, we have to talk about the US, not the U.S.
After my manual reversion (in which I corrected 23 instances of "U.S." to "US", which means, of course, that none of the instances in the article use U.S., except for the references to one book which is apparently titled thusly), your next edit appeared to change all or some of the "US" back to "U.S." I have to admit, that I sort of stopped scanning the diff after the first two changes, so I overlooked your changes to the line about and a war between an alliance of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia against the "Chinese Hegemony" and just reflexively reverted. Sorry about that.
I'm glad you took my links to heart and read MOS:US. One problem here is that the bit you changed (→ United States) isn't really the first mention, although I'd accept that that might not matter here, as the MOS is talking about the sentence with the list (eerily similar to the model!). If you want to change that one sentence again, go ahead, I won't revert that. We don't otherwise use "UK" or "USSR" in the article, but we do have several instances of "UK" in the refs, so I would prefer that we stay with "US" over "U.S." throughout. Cheers,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with using one form over another and was only trying to bring some uniformity to the article. If you prefer to use US throughout the article then by all means do so. I will change the one sentence to read "the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia." Although the abbreviation "UK" is correct, I am thinking there might be that some of the readership, especially in the United States, that might not know that "UK" stands for United Kingdom. Us Yanks can be somewhat insular when it comes to the world view. Thank you for the polite discourse; that isn't always the case on Wikipedia. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
And I appreciate you coming by to ask and to alert me to my oversight. I look forward to crossing paths (as opposed to, say, swords) with you again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update[edit]

Thanks for letting me know that the guidelines of MOS:ORDER were updated. I remember seeing that discussion recently but have completely forgotten about it until now. I just wish I knew this happened a whole month ago, haha. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Article and help talk pages[edit]

Please don't post on my talk page anymore. Your frequent aspersions are not acceptable. Use article talk pages, help talk pages, etc.. Ping me from there if you want my input.

I will stop posting on your talk page if requested here. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)