Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello John, I was quite amazed that you added a remark of "no references" to the above article. The sources are abundantly visible under the paragraph 'Literature'. If you would need others, it should be your task to look for them. By all means there seems to be sometimes an erroneous view on the sources to be given for an encyclopedia. This is not a scholarly historic notice, where every sentence asks for a footnote. I work along the best example there is, I mean the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Another user changed your remark in "unsufficient references', but this also was not exact. All the best. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andries. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. One of the core content policies is that all content must be verifiable. From WP:UNSOURCED: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. A list of general references is not enough, the content needs inline citations. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree and am sure the interested reader of this article has ample references with those I provided and can verify everything, if he wants to. I prefer to go into a battle or, if I loose, to quit Wikipedia all together, rather than to go along with these foolish conditions of so called 'inline citations'. This is a good way of vandalizing and even destroying Wikipedia in the English language, which is growing more and more in recent years. An encyclopedia is not a scholarly memoir. The critics demanding such pointless 'citations' are mostly users who do not contribute themselves with original contributions. best regards, Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andries Van den Abeele: You may not agree with the policies of Wikipedia but that's no reason to ignore them. It's not up to the reader to trawl through numerous sources to verify the information in the article but for the editor to point them to the relevant source. I fail to see how adding inline citations is vandalism. --John B123 (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a regular contributor to the Dutch Wikipedia since 2007 and a more irregular one to the English Wikipedia since 2010. I have seen the latter deteriorate regularly under the 'dictatorship' of more recent users (mostly operating under the anonimity of a pseudonym) who never contribute themselves with new articles but rush through numerous articles (in 28/11 alone, you made almost 200 interventions) with schoolish remarks which are not to the point in an encyclopedia and made on the basis of self-construed or understood rules. Take the Encyclopedia Brittanica and you will see that compared to it my articles on Wikipedia are abundantly rich in references. I cannot imagine that you and others would have the arrogance of knowing better than the good old Enc. Brittanica? If I look at articles where the maker has indeed followed the pedantic so-called 'policy', I mostly see all sorts of inline references which learn nothing or are very often shortlived newspapers references. In some instances they can be useful, but most of the time they are not. If you have worked yourself up to become a moderator or influencer of some sort, I call you up to come to your senses and to make interesting new articles, rather than pursuing pointless largely self-construed regulations. I consider such a behaviour as destructive with regard to the future of the encyclopedia and therefore indeed as vandalism. best regards, -Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andries Van den Abeele: I don't write the guidelines, they have been formed over time by consensus. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant. Comments to other editors that are bordering in personal attacks won't help your cause. Although I feel no need to justify myself to you, I have in fact created, and continue to create, many article on en-wiki. --John B123 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DRCNSINDIA. You don't need my permission to recreate the article, but if you do it needs to be in your own words not copied from somewhere else. --John B123 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir thanks 🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John B123, how are you doing? I noticed that you speedy deleted a page that I created on SUGAR Cosmetics since it appeared to be promotional. I think I'd agree with you that the article had that tangent because of the reception section where I had cited Economic Times and one more source about the review etc. However, I wanted to check with you - do you think the subject was otherwise notable? The reason I thought it was notable was because they were uniquely producing products for Indian shades and were emerging to be a leader in India cosmetic industry despite it being a closed space dominated by old players. Besides, there was coverage in Indian Today [1], Entrepreneur [2], Economic Times [3], Forbes [4]. With this, I see them qualifying WP:GNG with ease. But would love to learn from you on what's your take on the notability of the subject. Thanks for your time on this! Good day to you.

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Palmsandbeaches. I think it's marginal for notability. If you want to recreate the page I would advise finding some further sources and writing it in a more neutral way. You might want to have a look at WP:COMPANY too. Regards --John B123 (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John B123, Thank for your view and inputs. I might bother you again though (apologies in advance for that!). Once again, thanks for your time.

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Palmsandbeaches. No problem, always happy to help if I can. Regards --John B123 (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B123 thank you for confirming the two pages I created. Could you take a look at Draft:Sheikh Madar? I would appreciate it a lot. Thanks WanderingGeeljire (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WanderingGeeljire. The article looks fine, it just needs some categories added. (Whist in draft, categories should be disable by adding a colon after the opening brackets, eg [[:Category:1825 births]]. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John what do you mean by categories? and how should I add them? WanderingGeeljire (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ Categories link the article with other similar articles and are listed at the bottom of the article. You successfully added categories to Abdulrahman Deria here.[5] Regards --John B123 (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha okay I will add that section then right now. After that is complete will the page be ready to come out of drafts? WanderingGeeljire (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ That's fine. I've moved the article to mainspace now. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much I truly appreciate the help, you've confirmed 3 of my pages that's great. Would it be possible to reduce the protection level of the Habr Awal page? I've been using the talk section to put in requests and this section Habr Awal_#Garaads and Sultans of the Habr Awal was my work. I'd like to edit it directly though since that's much easier and I can fix typos as well. Regards, WanderingGeeljire (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingGeeljire (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WanderingGeeljire. Only admins can change page protection levels. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Indian_derby Shahoodu (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahoodu. The article hasn't been added to any categories. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added now Shahoodu (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahoodu. Well done, I've marked the page as reviewed. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Thank you very much! for reviewing Sussi cloth. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you,

🇮🇳GoWB🇮🇳 (ask me any questions) 16:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DRCNSINDIA. The "Career" section needs some more references. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B123. You wanted reliable secondary sources for Scott Farrell (organist). Notability of holders of full Organist and Director of Music posts at English cathedrals is well established - see Paul Trepte, Mark Blatchly, Adrian Bawtree, Roger Sayer, etc. etc. Do you want sources that say he actually held those posts at those cathedrals? BBC News is a reliable secondary source for his arrest and conviction. Chi Sigma (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi [[U|Chi Sigma}}, the article is largely unreferenced, it needs addition citations to verify. Regards --John B123 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To verify what - that he exists? That he was indeed Organist and Director of Music at Newcastle and Rochester? You seem to be confusing GNG and VERIFY. Chi Sigma (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ No confusion here. Please see WP:BURDEN. --John B123 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, and it talks about the burden of verifying material, not the burden of proving that it passes GNG, which is a separate thing. Chi Sigma (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the article is largely unreferenced. Without the sources to back up the content it doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. --John B123 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To back up what content?! Could you please take more than 10 seconds to reply this time, and explain to me why you think the notability of this person is in doubt, as opposed to the verifiability of whatever statement you want verified? Chi Sigma (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I have tried to explain what is wrong with the article. If you can't accept that then there's little else I can do. I don't appreciate your sarcasm. --John B123 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to explain what is wrong with the article. If there is little else you can do, I will remove the tag. WP:GNG is not the same thing as WP:VERIFY, no matter how many times you say it. Chi Sigma (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ The article needs to be referenced correctly, I don't see what is difficult about that. Untill you have resolved the issue please do not remove the tag. --John B123 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." You have simply misunderstood WP:GNG, or failed to read it properly. "Without the sources to back up the content it doesn't pass WP:GNG" is a nonsensical statement, and this disruptive editing is a violation of WP:DRIVEBY and WP:EDITWAR; stop it. Chi Sigma (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have spent move time arguing about this than it would have taken to add the necessary references to resolve the problem. Why are you avoiding adding the necessary sources as per WP:BURDEN? --John B123 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stupid argument. Yes. I would love to be doing something more constructive. Unfortunately, I have now pointed out numerous times why WP:GNG does not say what you think it says, and you are still here talking about WP:BURDEN! I have given chapter and verse as to why there is no "problem" that can be "resolved" by adding the "necessary references". The tag is for GNG. Not for WP:BURDEN, or for WP:VERIFY, which you still appear to be confusing with GNG. Per WP:DRIVEBY, it is up to you to explain why you think the article does not meet GNG. Repeating the same vague point about WP:BURDEN or WP:VERIFY that I've addressed numerous times is not an explanation, and nor is it helping to build an encyclopedia. Change the tag to a more appropriate tag if you like, otherwise, delete it. Chi Sigma (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, the article does not have enough citations to show notability. I don't know how else to explain that. Why not just add the references? --John B123 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. You are asking me to achieve by adding references something that WP:GNG explicitly states cannot be achieved by adding references. You don't know how else to explain that because it cannot be explained. It is incorrect. Wikipedia has arrived at a policy, through consensus, and you are choosing to ignore that policy and make your own policies up as you go along. Remove the tag. Chi Sigma (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG more carefully, in particular WP:NRV rather than trying to interpret it to your own ends. As it stands, the only references show he was an organist, a paedophile and was charged with gross indecency. None of which make him notable. --John B123 (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for, at last, articulating what your problem with the article is, but you are wrong, for reasons I've already stated. Being "an organist" doesn't make him notable, but being the holder of a full "Organist and Director of Music" post at two English cathedrals does. As is well established by the number of bluelinked articles from List_of_musicians_at_English_cathedrals, including both this person's immediate predecessor and immediate successor at Rochester. If the words "Organist and Director of Music" don't mean anything in particular to you, I can only suggest asking someone more familiar with the church music world to give their opinion. (As for WP:NRV, it confirms exactly what I've been saying from the beginning.) Chi Sigma (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:SNG that gives notability to "Organist and Director of Music" as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you could provide a link to that guideline. --John B123 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNG has nothing to do with what I just said. Please read it again. Chi Sigma (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because some of the people listed at List_of_musicians_at_English_cathedrals have their own articles, it doesn't mean everybody in that list qualifies, you might just as well say some rock musicians have articles therefore all rock musicians can have an article. You need an SNG to give automatic notability. Please read the various notability guidelines. --John B123 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for reviewing all my plant articles. Starzoner (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starzoner, most kind of you. Thank you for all the articles you have created. Regards --John B123 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I mention your edits here (and in the edit summary):

• Talk:Randecker_Maar_Research_Station#Restore_deletion_of_sourced_material

I don't think the ping worked. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Tornheim Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello john. would you help me to correct my user talk archive method? i closed some parts but they didn't archived yet after 2 weeks! i don't know much about archiving..can you fix it for me? Best.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mojtaba2361. Closing the discussions won't make any difference to archiving. Threads are archived a set period after the last activity on that thread. You had it set to 90 days, I've changed that to 7 days. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please let me know which passage you cite as copyright infringement on the Nemmers Prize in Medical Science page and what the source is? I included references on my page. I was mirroring the single-paragraph format from the three other existing Nemmers Prizes Wikipedia pages. I will rewrite some things now if I may have a bit more time now. Thank you. --Chicrunner79 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Chicrunner79 (I hope I did this correctly, thank you.)[reply]

Hi Chicrunner79 The offending text is highlighted here: [6] Obviously the phrases "Mechthild Esser Nemmers Prize in Medical Science" and "Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine" are not a problem. Regards --John B123 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, working on it now. I will try to say it differently.Chicrunner79 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ Let me know when you have made the changes. Regards --John B123 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look now? I am not sure if it's OK to put a statement in quotations (I will research this) since it is the qualifications for the prize (I don't want to misrepresent what the prize awarded for). I am very happy to try again - I haven't seen use of 'according to' as a reference on wikipedia but it seems like this might be the best way to do this if I am using quotation marks. I am still learning! I'd like to do the Earth Sciences Prize too later this week but want to be sure I get this right before I go there. Thanks again for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicrunner79 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ It looks fine now. I think the quotation marks are enough, as it is referenced 'according to' isn't really needed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will remove the according to. Thanks so much for your feedback! Chicrunner79 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I've already removed it along with the speedy delete tag. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm SMB99thx. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Home Laundry (disambiguation), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

SMB99thx my edits! 23:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it as unreviewed because it's getting PRODded. SMB99thx my edits! 23:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMB99thx: No problem. It was in the balance whether I marked it as reviewed or PRODed it myself. Regards --John B123 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you . Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV, Thanks, most kind of you. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B123, I have added citations for every paragraph at International Academy of Ceramics. Can the template be removed? Kattiel (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kattiel, that's fine now. I've removed the tag. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, thank you very much for reviewing my new page RAF Lakenheath near nuclear disasters favourably. Snugglewasp (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snugglewasp, no problem. It's an interesting article. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B. I was to let you know fo my recent edits to the page and my addition of more citations and paragraphs. Hope all is well. -- Yoshisaur20 (User talk:Yoshisaur20|talk]]) 20:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshisaur20 (talk • contribs)

Hi Yoshisaur20, well done - I've removed the tags. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you please review this page. I believe I've provided enough sources to remove the "This article needs additional citations for verification" bar Sargon Gallu (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sargon Gallu. Well done, I've removed the tag. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123 Sir Greetings! I have revised edits on the subject articles and added inline references. Kindly visit. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV, They're fine now. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I need your help here also. Please guide me how to delete a page created with wrong name i.e. Raja Ram Jaipuria. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV, I see somebody else has already sorted it. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

John B123 Sir many many congratulations to you ! Cheers RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rajaram Jaipuria --John B123 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi, one of my article i hv created having some issues and senior wiki member has given me some notice. will be happy to keep learning from you. pls check my talk section. IK1313 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IK1313, I've added some comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kislay Pandey (2nd nomination). There's not a lot else I can do. Adding more references would help the case at AfD. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

can you pls check my latest work and let me know its fine or not.. i am back after my exams... looking forward to learn from my wiki teacher.

please check - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScamBreaking.com

Hi IK1313, I see it has been tagged for speedy deletion for being too promotional. You need to edit it so it looks less like a press release. Not starting every sentance with "ScamBreaking.com" would be a good start. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B123, i have done the required changes. Please see if i am on right way.

Hi,

kudos to the hard work. You have done an awesome job...

keep teaching me.

IK1313 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IK1313. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]