You're doing an awesome job on VvG. I really think your name should be on the FAC nom rather than mine. [On re-reading this, I see it could potentially be mistaken for a backhanded way to ask for compliments for myself. Nope! I'm saying it as a plain, honest, straightforward compliment to you.] Cheers  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am really enjoying myself. --John (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		John this is a poor substitute to highlight how impressive your work on Vincent van Gogh has been, but it's more than earned. No amount of gratitude can express the amount and quality of your work there; it's truly been exceptional and a joy to watch. Victoria (tk) 04:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoria, that is very generous of you. I have greatly enjoyed working on this article and I would love to work with you again in the future if you have other projects planned. --John (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I might, though to be honest I came out of semi-retirement only for this and every time I go through FAC I promise myself never again. The barnstar was more than deserved, but Ceoil is right to say that it's paltry. That said, at that moment it was something I wanted to do. Anyway, welcome to the team. I'm being a little anal and have started a list on the talk page here, mentioning a few things I've noticed that have been changed (most notably Dr. vs Dr). You've taken care of most of these, and I thought it's a good place to keep together our decisions re style. I.,e I'm aware that I don't always get the dates as they should be, so that's another one. Also, I have a small and messy factory in my sandbox. Feel free to take a look, dip in, or even ignore. I may spend a little time researching some of the issues in Brian's most recent set of comments, and I have just picked up a large biography from the library to re-read the ear episode again, so this week I'll be out reading more than here editing. Victoria (tk) 01:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, though I would say that John's contribs to the article are far beyond c/e. He has been a rock. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Och Ceoil that is too generous of you. You and User:Modernist wrote the thing! All I've done is some wee nips and tucks. Very interesting it's been too. --John (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, John, your guidance on matters of structure and detail have been most useful, Brick of Sense award there. I am most appreciative of pared down prose, though not quite capable of it myself; you did dat dere. I am delighted that you are enjoying working on the article, its been a blast from here too. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been an honour and a pleasure to work with you again. You asked me about this months ago and I knew it would be difficult. We are nearly there I think. Teamwork at its best. Slainthe! --John (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slainte and yes teamwork. I'm not sure where this FAC will end up, but it has certainly reinforced my opinion that there are really great people still here. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved, appreciate all of your help...Modernist (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• responded...Modernist (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, John ! Hope the summer has been good so far. It hasn't for me, as my dad "Pappa" left this world Monady, just a bit after midnight. He was 78 and heared not so well and also his eye-sight was affected by AMD. But he was always in good mood, making his silly jokes, he still drove both car and his little motor-boat. He just a became bit tired faster than in younger days. So it came quite suddenly, and I'm having difficulties in handeling my sorrow. My dad ment a lot to me, for almost 52 year he was MY dad. Sorry to bother you about that. But I have a Wikipedia question and this is the reason to why I contact you. Do you know anything about the following account User:Earthscent (always in red), extern link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Earthscent&action=edit&redlink=1 .I mean just a sentence like "To start a page called User:Earthscent, type in the box below." confuses me. Could it even be CIA ? It doesn't quit seem to be a personal/normal account ? "It" has erased a rather long comment about what the legacy of Donald Trump's way stright to the top of the Republican Party over there, will be (even if Hillary wins, it's was about the bought road to the top - to my knowledge has he never held any political seat or office at any level before, not even runned for Mayor or anything similar). My point was about the times to come. And will future Presidential elections in the United states be between for instance Bill Gate and someone like Steve Jobs was ??? I don't think I was out of bonds in general, but the formulation was perhaps too personal. I don't care about the rejection as such. But if possible, am I keen to know more about this mysterious account. Have a pleasant continuation of the summer, hope Scotland will get some sunshine during the weeks to come. Boeing720 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boeing720, first of all my condolences for your tragic loss. I can only imagine what you must be going through. Be strong and it will get better in time. Regarding your Wikipedia question, you might try asking User:Earthscent in the first instance. It may well be that they removed your material because the article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, and your material looked more like general questions about the US system, which would come under WP:NOTFORUM. There are places on the Internet you can discuss stuff like this, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. If that was why they removed it, they should really have told you that. Try not to think badly of others editing here; as you know WP:AGF is important. The person operating that account is not an "it" but a real person like you and me. Once again, my heart goes out to you. --John (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. I'm 52 and will manage, but my dad was very dear to me and 78 isn't that old

given he retired at 60. Anyway the text I wrote was made in totally wrong formate. (and too long) But the basic issue about American politics that might become Presidential candidates by jumping over all normal political steps (like mayor of a city, govenor of a state or becomming a senator or member of the house) and goes directly to the top of a party, and becommes the Presidential candidate of a party just like that, isn't quite described in the article. What it means for the future. But I should not made any suggestions, of cource. I might try asking User:Earthscent about the account - but I haven't been angry. Sooner confused, and not by the removal but the user page. Anyway, big thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit to the FAC, [1], not sure what I've done there. Did I mistakenly move your post? Or was something removed from the article and then retrieved? Anyway, whatever happened, sorry. I'm finished for now, I think. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All looks tickety-boo to me, no apologies necessary. Thanks for your continued work there. --John (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Tickety-boo" made me laugh! Onwards. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was channelling Group Captain Lionel Mandrake there. Do you know in all my ten years here, a kazillion edits, I don't think I have ever been on this end of the FAC process before, so you and the others are really opening my eyes to what it's like. I think it's all going really well so far, don't you? Brianboulton is a very exacting reviewer which is exactly what the article needs. --John (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, it was bugging me that I knew it from somewhere but couldn't remember where. Yes, FAC can be hard. I've worked on three vital article bios before this one - the biggest challenge is having the books available and quickly (or not so quickly) finding a single point somewhere in those thousands of pages. Smaller topics are obviously easier. It's essential to get it right on the articles with high page views, but the editors who work the page tend to lose perspective and need someone like Brian to find the snags. Thorough reviews are essential for these pages. Victoria (tk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the process invigorating, but I have to say, co-noms with you V are always, as now, much easier. I agree its going well, which I put down down to the level of commitment shown by each of the nominators. I've always seen John as a content admin in the Moni/Dianna/Fram/Nikki manner ie a rock of good sense, not easily swayed, someone with consistent, focused priorities, and whose words are always considered, not lightly thrown, and carry weight. Really great to finally collab and co-nom at this level. Ceoil (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very generous of you Ceoil. This has renewed my faith in the collaborative model here, if it needed renewing. --John (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to ask this of you John and Ceoil, but we haven't had a source review yet and I haven't really kept up with all the editing to the refs. Plus I have a very bad case of template-itis, and my eyes aren't great. Would be best if either or both of you took a look through to be certain it's all consistent. From a quick look I think e.g current FN 60 probably needs to be wrapped in a note template, but I haven't the skill for that. Victoria (tk) 17:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly take a look at this some time tonight. --John (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of Brian's points have been met now. Can you scan, and I'll ping him back. After that, I'm going to take a week to have a nervous breakdown in peace and quite. Its been emotional, to say the least! Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good. --John (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Policing up"(??) User_talk:NeilN#Hmm... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New one on me too. Don't worry, I won't break 3RR. We have a horrible cruftfest on a popular car. My efforts to bring it in line with WP:V have been met with horror by two well-meaning editors. See the discussion in talk there. --John (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Won't break 3RR" [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Are you kidding? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if it had been someone I didn't recognize I probably would have gone to AN3 without a second thought. Might be worth considering a self revert and parsing things out instead of trying to push through a 25k sized edit, especially after a half dozen reverts by multiple editors.

Apologize for the army jargon. Basically police up = pick up after. TimothyJosephWood 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for introducing me to the army jargon. Andy, check the times. I was pretty careful not to break 3RR I think. Even in a blatant case of tag-teaming to restore unverifiable shit, that has been under discussion for a month and a half, I would not intentionally break that. If you are interested in improving the article, the talk page is that-a-way. --John (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I was pretty careful not to break 3RR I think."

I'm sure you were. The problem is that you think this somehow makes it better, when actually it's worse. You're not doing this accidentally, you really think that this is the way to proceed. It isn't. How many editors do you need to tell you this? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a real question? I hear your opinion, and I promise to treat it with all the seriousness it deserves. --John (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." I have blocked in this situation so... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block me by all means if you think it necessary, Neil. I am here to improve the encyclopedia, and I make no promises I will not again remove unsourced garbage that has been flagged up for years. --John (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was wanting to convey. All I was trying to say was making a fourth revert a few hours after the 24-hour period might not save you if you're reported to WP:ANEW. That's it, that's all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly interested in the article. It's not my subject area. I am somewhat more interested in an admin gaining consensus for major changes instead of riding 3RR like a razor's edge. TimothyJosephWood 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, this is Randy from Boise, isn't it? I haven't seen this for a while!--John (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I don't particularly care about the article, have never edited it, and claim no expertise. I have had occasion to read WP:EW, and have noted that WP:V and WP:NPOV are not exceptions. Your flippant responses make me question my decision to try to resolve this informally, instead of doing what I would have done with any other editor that popped up on recent changes. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How very interesting, User:Timothyjosephwood. Since you're such an expert in military jargon, I expect you know what "Jog on" means. Do it, please. --John (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]