User talk:John of Reading/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:John of Reading. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

ppppp

Please check out [1]. It seems like User:Sperming Patroller is speading his stuff while on patrol...leaving quite a mess. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yuck! Sperming Patrol (talk · contribs) has received a final warning. I've posted at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list - if an admin adds it to that list, the software will refuse to display the image anywhere. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ponaganset High School

Hello John. This IP has tried to contribute some new informations to the above mentioned High School article, but he obviously needs help. Some reverts weren't justified I guess. I saw that you have contributed to the article before. Please have a look whether the edits made by the IP can be adopted or not. Best Regards, --Avoided (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this article ended up on my watchlist, but, yes, I've been removing unsourced information from it for over a year. I was even mentioned in the article myself for a minute or so last March.

The most recent edit is by a newly-registered account Patrickjwahl (talk · contribs). I will assume this is the same person and try to be helpful on his talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Adsteam Marine Logo spelling error(s)

(File:Adsteam-marine-logo.jpg) - Wow! That "typo" has been there for over 3.5 years; what caused you to spot it?
(And BTW: There was also a typo 2 lines above ... ) Thanks! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the word "opeation" in an article somewhere, and added it to my "to do list". Yesterday I did a scan of a downloaded database dump to find all pages containing this typo and/or about 20 others, and now I'm working through them - details here. I did see "illustation" as I was saving one of my recent edits - I can't remember whether it was this one - and have added it to the next "to do list". -- John of Reading (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about others, but I am impressed. Good work! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of {{as of}}

I don't understand this template - what it's for. I can't stand that Americanism "as of" so I change the text using the alt parameter. But all it seems to do is insert the alt text into the page. I don't want that - I thought it was supposed to leave a mark somewhere John of Cromer in ~~China~~ Philippines (talk) mytime= Thu 18:37, wikitime= 10:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It puts the page into two hidden categories (one dated). For example, {{as of|2013|02|14}} puts an article into Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from February 2013 and Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements. In this way, we can track down articles with out-of-date information. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought even hidden categories could be seen if one looked hard enough. My main problem though is that it puts the alt text into the page, thus {{as of|2013|2|13|alt = as at}} ->as at

I guess I'll just have to live with hateful {{as of}}. John of Cromer in ~~China~~ Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 14:13, wikitime= 06:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To see hidden categories, tick the box on the "Appearance" tab of your preferences. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, {{as of}} writes text too. I thought it just flagged the page. Bah! John of Cromer in ~~China~~ Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 15:43, wikitime= 07:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If given date information alone, {{as of}} displays the words "As of" and that date, besides categorising the page as I described earlier. Use of the |alt= parameter places the page in the same categories, but displays different text. Examples here; more at Wikipedia:As of. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rugby League/Rugby league

I wasn't aware there was a need to gain the support of a group to correct English grammar inconsistencies and errors on Wiki.

I am concerned about the use of links using incorrect English grammar in the Wiki page for Rugby League. Perhpas it would help us all if you could list the link errors so that we can fix them? Otherwise it might be of more value for you to advise the contributing editors for the Rugby League page to correct their mistakes. Rather than stop me from correct those grammar errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.87.3 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2013‎

I'd like to stress that I undid some of your edits only because they didn't work - they converted working links into non-working links. I didn't undo your edits at Rugby league myself, but I would have done if I had been the first to see them - they were clearly done with a global search and replace, changing the words in URLs, book titles, image names and category names.

To change the name of an article, use the Requested move process
To change the name of a category, use the Categories for discussion process
To change the name displayed by a link, you can use a piped link of the form [[Rugby league in the Falkland Islands|Rugby League in the Falkland Islands]]
To change the name of a book, or similar, make the edit and use the edit summary to explain how you know that the previously-displayed book title was incorrect. For example, you may own a copy of the book, or you may have seen an image of the book at Amazon or similar.
URLs probably shouldn't be changed at all, unless you can verify that the previous version of the URL doesn't work and your new version does work. Again, best use the edit summary to explain that you've checked it
To request a change in the name of an image, use the {{Rename media}} template. Since image names aren't usually seen by readers, this is probably a step too far. Image names only have to be "good enough", and I'm not aware of anyone who goes round fixing typos and grammar errors in image names.

All this will be a *lot* of work to do properly, and I guarantee that your requests and edits will go through far more smoothly if you discuss them at Talk:Rugby league first. You'll be able to make a more convincing case if you can show that you have read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which explains Wikipedia's usual conventions. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hey John! Well, thank you for that answer in my talk page. I was not really aware of that new feature but it's all clear to me now. Thanks again. ;) Mediran (t • c) 00:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! The change certainly needs more publicity. For the last N years, vandalism patrollers have been routinely undoing edits like those; suddenly they are constructive edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Updating US counties list

Hello John of Reading, the WV county list has made FL...can I update this county lists page or do you or does anyone else? Let me know if I can help. I also hope to get a few more of these lists to FL statusCoal town guy (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead; you don't need permission from me or anyone else. I just made an edit there because it turned up on one of my misspelling lists. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, this has been doneCoal town guy (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrative topics

I disagree with the use of the administrative Category:Wikipedia for things which are named in honor of Wikipedia. The very label "administrative" implies that the category is meant to be used to help organize the project, not merely as an aide to organizing related topics. If our fellow editors want to include such non-administratively-connected articles in the category, then this category should no longer be considered an "administrative" category but instead it should be treated as an ordinary, non-administrative one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The blurb at Category:Wikipedia says it is for encyclopedic topics. The top-level administrative category is Category:Wikipedia administration. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know why I got that mixed up not just once but twice. On different days no less. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Jonas Lund/Jonas Lundh

I checked out these and they appear are different people, judging by their official websites: [2], [3]. I understand the confusion with the near identical names! --Drm310 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It struck me as odd that MovedTouch (talk · contribs) edited both of them. Still, never mind. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your help at Portal:Criminal justice, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- John of Reading (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Who said that typos are worth nothing?

		The Typo Team Barnstar
		Thank you very much for removing my ubiquitous, secularly stratified silly typos! :-D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 4

Thank you for attending the third Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. We hope to keep this as a regular event, every two months, on the first Sunday of the month (in order not to clash with London [second Sunday]). A page has been created about the fourth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetup is London, 10 March 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I enjoyed the meetup yesterday. I've penciled 5th May into the calendar, and will decide nearer the time. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

AWB misfire

This edit probably wasn't what you meant. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(More) The section title should, of course, be "John of Reading misfire". I am responsible for every edit I make with the tool, and in this case none of AWB's built-in logic was involved. -- John of Reading (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Another draft

Hi John,

I need to start another draft article. I don't remember how to do that. I have my 'sandbox' and one other additional draft article right now. Please, what do I do to open up a third, new draft page? Thanks. Thewritewoman (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! January's questions and answers have been moved from this page to User talk:John of Reading/Archive 10, so the advice you are looking for is here, here and here. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing Photomarathon

Dear Addshore I am trying to find out who is editing the page "Photomarathon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomarathon)and saw that your name appeared in the history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photomarathon&action=history)

There is a network of around 20 cities around the world that organises this kind of event, mostly organised by volunteers as non-profit organisations. I am part of the network in Germany, where there are four such events, and am in touch with many other such events in Europe and South America. here you can see a complete list of these kind of events: http://www.fotomarathon.de/en/what-is-fotomarathon/world-of-fotomarathons

We (the members of the worldwide photomarathon/fotomarathon network) would like to create a page where the information to this kind of event is complete, and offer links to the cities where these events exist. We would also like to replicate this page in German, and possibly in Danish, French and Welsh, where some of our members have the capacity to create and translate the text. The concept of this photo competition is "open source" there are a few things that remain the same, but then many people in their cities can do certain things differently. We think it would be worthwhile to have an article about this much loved photo competition in Wikipedia.

Since these events are so widespread, we thought it would be good to describe them in a general and neutral way (what it is, how it works, what is in some places the same, what is different, etc). I am aware of the conflict of interest policy at wikipedia and we want to respect the policy while at the same time spreading the word to this kind of photo competitions around the world.

I have also noted that the COI policy also mentions that self promotion is not desired: in this case my article would not be limited to one event, but to the concept, with links to the places where these events exist. Would this be still self promotion?

I would be very thankful if you could provide some advice and guidance about what would be the best way to take the next step. We would be prepared to submit a text and the links, and gladly we would take any advice to make sure we don´t ran into potential problems with the conflict of interest policy.

Many thanks in advance for taking the time to see (and hopefully reply to) this message.

Best regards GardeniaFair

--GardeniaFair (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hi, thank you for posting here and explaining. Actually you've somehow found your way to the "talk page" of a different Wikipedia editor, registered as "John of Reading", and I have never edited the Photomarathon article. But never mind!

Yes, the article could do with more detail about the history of the concept. What's needed for a Wikipedia article is statements backed up by "reliable sources" such as books, newspapers, magazines and respected online news sites. With a naive Google search I'm seeing lots of pages about individual photo marathons, but not much about the concept as a whole. If you know where to find that kind of coverage, then, yes, you would be welcome to improve the article. I recommend that you begin by posting your suggested text and details of its sources to the "talk page" of the article, Talk:Photomarathon, for other editors to review.

Using a Google Books search I found this source from 1994, where a "photo marathon" meant running for 26 miles while taking photos. Do you know of earlier coverage than that?

But Wikipedia is definitely not a place to advertise future events, for detail that ought to be on your own web sites, or for a list of links to websites - click those links to read more about those points.

I hope that helps. Feel free to post here again, and I'll do my best.

Looking at its history, most of the deletions were done by the editor named TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs), so I'll invite him (her?) to comment here as well. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I havent looked back to verify, but if i recall correctly the site had become an advertising hub for one or two of the events sourced primarily to their websites and press releases. As User:John of Reading pointed out, if you have third party sources, expansion based on encyclopedic coverage is welcome. advertising and promotion is not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You John!

Thank you so much for your kindness and patience in helping me. I have bookmarked that archived page where our previous 'Talk' messages can be viewed, and will always try to get what I need there before I take any more of your time. You are a mensch, John! Thewritewoman (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Perhaps the next piece of advice you need is Help:Using talk pages#Talk page use, so that your comments here aren't posted in a new section each time. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you John, now I have another question. I am working on that third draft-in-progress article now. But alas, I typed the title of the page incorrectly at the time that I initially created the page. I typed it as: WORLD™ Symposium; when I should have typed it as: WORLD Symposium™. May I correct this somehow? Or does this have to be done at an administrative level instead? I do need to have it corrected, one way or another. And if the ™ symbol isn't allowed to be shown in titles, then I would simply need to have ™ removed instead. Thank you John! Thewritewoman (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your account is autoconfirmed, so you should be able to move the page to the correct name. WP:TITLEFORMAT covers the choice of name for an article. Please see also MOS:TM regarding the ™ symbol, and both MOS:CAPS and WP:ACRONYMTITLE regarding capitalisation. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose, that saved me some typing! -- John of Reading (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose and John, for helping me with these links. I really appreciate your kindness, time and effort! Thewritewoman (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

playes?

Greetings, fellow word warrior. I am currently working playes, and am, of course, finding some that should be player or played. I am also finding some Olde English ones (which I leave alone), but have many that are in the nature of: He currently playes for some football club or other. Am I right that these need to be corrected to plays? --LilHelpa (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely! "playes" at OneLook.com. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A new tag needed ...

I've just started applying myself to Category:Pages with missing references list, which is fairly straightforward, and Category:All articles with broken or outdated citations, which is hard work. Particularly in the first I come across pages which I think are plain howlers. I usually leave content alone and concentrate on fixing the citation side of things.

However yesterday I came across a couple of pages which made me pause:

David J. Campanale - I wanted apply a {{so what?}} tag, but there isn't one, so I settled for {{peacock}}
Gregg Wallace - I hacked out a chunk with would have been more at home in Sunday Sport, and in any case had a fairly tenuous link to the subject.

I also remove things which I consider fail per WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTTRAVEL.

Am I doing the right thing(s)?

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 07:50, wikitime= 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Full marks to you for looking at the whole article, not just at the formatting problem that drops the article into a maintenance category. For David J. Campanale, one option would be to remove the unsourced text (from this edit). For Gregg Wallace, I fully agree. Just because some TV program researched his ancestry, there's no need to include it in an encyclopedia article about him. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If an article is well-established, I look into history to see why it's failed - often some sort of vandalism. Problem there is that it is so difficult to report (and I got a snarling response when I tried) that I don't now bother trying, just add vandalism to edit reason. I don't know whether 'undo' has some secret action, but I find it easier just to revert to previous good one, especially if vandalism spans several edits.

Alternatively it could be a new article, often with badly formed citations. Usually I try to repair, unless the article strikes me as too inconsequential - obviously someone thinks it important enough to write about though. And hopefully, if they look at what I've done they can do make well-formed citations themselves next time.

Having had about 30,000 bytes (25%) hacked out of my pet article, I am aware of what goes in, what stays out. One thing that gets me though is the amount of foreign language in the articles. For instance several of the pages in Category:All articles with broken or outdated citations feature female Arab singers and a lot of the citations are in Arabic. Or there are a lot of pages on (small) settlements in Turkey, whose title is in Turkish too, as well as in the body text. I've whinged about that before.

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 09:15, wikitime= 01:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What often happens is that an article gets copied from the foreign-language Wikipedia, and the prose text gets translated by the person doing the copying - but they leave the refs alone. This may be understandable, since our ref templates rarely have a 100% match with the "equivalents" on the other Wikipedia, even when they remember to alter the template name from e.g. {{Cita web}} to {{cite web}}. Sometimes all that is then needed is the use of appropriate parameter names - |title= instead of the Spanish |titulo=; but sometimes the parameter value needs translation too - |fecha=29 de marzo de 2007 becomes |date=29 March 2007. It gets more involved when one of their parameters corresponds to two of ours, and vice versa. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC) say [[

I was thinking more in terms of eg Zizi Adel - all the citations are Arabic, some are already marked as dead. It would be (/ is) extremely difficult for a non-Arabic speaker (such as me) to know how to repair.
Articles like Osmancık - can't easily type it in, can't read it properly. I don't think they should be given wiki-houseroom
New problem - templates which overlap. {{GR}} is different from {{Gr}} and there is even a {{R}} which does something but I can't get regular template:R to tell me what.

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 19:49, wikitime= 11:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if the citations can't be repaired, they are still better than nothing. One day they might be repaired, and until then they are a sign to the reader that the information is likely to be correct. A knowledgeable reader could even delve into the history and check who added the citation originally, and form an opinion of their reliability that way.
See the essay Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes at WP:NPLACE; you'll just have to live with that article and those like it. But yes, most of it is unsourced and could, in theory, be removed. When I'm typo-fixing I sometimes despair and hit "Skip this article" - is it worth correcting "has a famouse post offis and garrage" to "has a famous post office and garage" when the whole section is unsourced and unencyclopedic? I'm not brave enough to do wholesale pruning...
Yes, like article names, template names are case-sensitive after the initial letter. {{R}} seems to be explained fairly well on its page; yet another way to format references without using angle brackets.

Hope that helps! -- John of Reading (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A good example of capitalisation being very important is that {{Esp}} {{ESp}} {{ESP}} are three different - and completely unrelated - templates. It's a good thing we don't have {{EsP}} as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Vector Capital listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vector Capital. Since you had some involvement with the Vector Capital redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Hackajar (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Vector Capital is an article, not a redirect, this nomination isn't going to work. I suggest you enable Twinkle in your preferences; one of its features is a menu option that makes it easy to nominate something for deletion correctly. Don't bother to notify me if you do re-nominate the article for deletion, as I only fixed a spelling mistake in it last July! -- John of Reading (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sinapse Print Simulator entry: justification for existence

Dear John, The company does cooperative R&D in the field of training simulation, in particular for printing & packaging.

Although Sinapse is the model maker, the knowledge-based simulators have all been developed with dozens of other companies - sometimes in dozens of countries - involved so that they reflect an industry-wide point of view.

As far as we know, the products are unique at this point (we have a reference letter to this effect from the world's major printing federation).

They are used by many national vocational training systems (for graphic arts)as well as >50% of the world's graphic arts schools and many of the world's major and minor printers

They are widely used around the world in different languages, as well as being used as an official evaluation tool in the WorldSkills Competitions: print knowledge being evaluated both on a few real presses, (which cost millions and weigh tons) and a half-dozen or so simulators (where the presses can be "broken" with no real world cost).

I notice that you are based in Asia and often in China. - There are hundreds of simulators in use in the Chinese educational system: A simulation laboratory costs a fraction of a real press and is use to train on problem-solving which would be outrageously expensive on a real press.

- The Chinese have been the winners in the last two international "productivity contests" in which hundreds of competitors around the world all solve problems in their local language, and then the "winners" move to the next round. 4 years ago the finalists were from Colombia and China, last year from Canada and China.

Can you help us understand why what we though was a typical "company" page on wikipedia (we looked at other companies in the same industry) was deleted ? Peterqherman (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are muddling two editors with similar names! I am "John of Reading", firmly based near Reading, England; but some of the messages on your talk page were posted by Johnmperry (talk · contribs), who signs as "John of Cromer in China" or wherever he is at the time. I think it is just a co-incidence that our signatures are so similar.

My comments on your article are further up this page, at #What to do about...?, where Johnmperry asked me for advice. I can't see the deleted page (I'm not an administrator here) and don't remember it well enough to comment in detail now. My general advice:

Read the FAQ page for organisations, and note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an extension of your company's website.
Read the Conflict of interest guideline. Wikipedia articles about companies are not normally written by the managing director or PR team.
Try to imagine writing the article using only the material that is available in reliable sources such as books, newspapers, and respected news outlets - no personal knowledge, and using nothing published by or for the company. If that's not possible, then the company probably doesn't belong at Wikipedia - see the notability guide for companies, or the very handy summary at WP:42.

A few years ago I worked for a company writing software for newspaper layout. Part of that involved an interface to software written by a press simulation company, so that press costs could be taken into account when deciding where to print colour pages within the newspaper. But neither the company I worked for, nor the press simulation company, have articles at Wikipedia, despite having hundreds of customers and millions of pounds of annual turnover. Most companies simply do not pass the notability guide for companies.

I hope some of this is helpful! -- John of Reading (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To confuse the issue still further - whilst I have seen John of Reading in Reading, I've also seen him in Oxford. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

John of Reading (town or verb or both ?) the comments were helpful. your pointers to WP: Corp will be useful. We had, indeed, tried a first article tracing all the various project on print simulator over the last 15 years - only one still running, but it got to be a dog's dinnner and was too rambling. The current entry was actually written by somone outside the company to avoid over-implication, it was entered under my logon as the external consulant just sent the text bact to us.

- We have a very specific problem, print industry trade magazines in the western world (the respectable sources), no longer publish many print editions (not enough advertising) ; we get cited in the e-newsletters which have largely replaced them but that is less prestigious. -- either we'll find a to undeline why the entry is justfied, or it will be swept away once again. Thanks, the comments are interesting, the process evenmore so. Peterqherman (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The town, mostly. One thought: are the e-newsletters you want to cite available online anywhere? Subscription-only archives are fine to use as Wikipedia references, provided the newsletters are from a reputable source (see WP:PAYWALL). I remember the printed Seybold Report; I see that their archives are online at www.seyboldreport.com. If you do try to create the article again, I recommend you create it as a "userspace draft" at, say, User:Peterqherman/Sinapse Print Simulation, so that it can be reviewed and improved rather than instantly deleted. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you are favoured - I sent him a message on his talk page and never got a reply. (Intended to be helpful and friendly) John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Thu 18:35, wikitime= 10:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. It's possible that Peterqherman didn't realise that two different "John of Xs" had left him messages. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

what next?

I have twice edited Central Market (Lancaster) to remove long lists of marketholders, per, in my opinion, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and twice the other editor has replaced them, albeit in different form.

I did a lot of other work too, such as checking the citations (which are mostly dead!)

What should my next step be? Just cancelling the reversion seems a waste of time. John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Thu 18:56, wikitime= 10:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your next step is to write something welcoming and polite on the user talk page. RoxAddino (talk · contribs) is a fairly new account, so may not have discovered the history page or seen your edit summaries. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do about...?

Sinapse print simulators looks like a scan of a sales brochure. Including the references, which is where I came in. I don't think it belongs on WP. What to do? John of Cromer in China ~~Philippines~~ (talk) mytime= Sat 07:20, wikitime= 23:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I don't know. Google News only seems to find recycled press releases, and the sources currently listed in the article aren't precise enough to be evidence of the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". So, if you're not very bold (me) tag it with {{advert}} and/or {{notability}}, so that specialists will look at it eventually, or if you're bolder you could try WP:AFD or even {{db-spam}}. The author's other new article, Print simulation, is a bit better.

As for the formatting: theses pages look like Wikipedia articles where the displayed text has been copied and re-posted as wikitext. The author, Peterqherman (talk · contribs), has about 160 deleted edits, so maybe there was a copy somewhere with better-formatted references which has been deleted. If the articles have any future at all, it may be worth finding an admin to check that. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

{{db-g11}} it is!

John of Cromer in China ~~Philippines~~ (talk) mytime= Sun 01:58, wikitime= 17:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 16:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Module talk:InfoboxImage.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Where I came in

I have a few questions:

Is there an easy way of seeing what books I have created? I eventually found they go to username/Books, but there doesn't seem any straightforward way of listing them. I mean a link at the top of the page, a la User Contributions etc.
Ditto the photos I've uploaded to Commons - I just want a list. The only way I know is a bit of a fiddle, = get into Wikimedia, such as by starting to upload a file, then clicking on User Contribution once in, and just printing the screen.
I had a problem yesterday, as I work through category:pages with missing references list. I've had similar before, but this more extreme. Basically an editor completely hijacks a page, overwriting what was there with text unconnected with page title. The other day it was Meenakshi Express and another (which may have been some sort of joke) was Manuel Uribe. However yesterday was more extreme, because the hijacker then renamed the page too. I was going to sleep on it and ask you in the morning, but it must have triggered alarms somewhere, because three different editors worked on it, and restored it (almost).
I pick all these up through working on category:Pages with missing references list (dead links was too hard). Most that's very dull, not to mention depressing, but occasionally there are some interesting and well-written articles. There is quite a lot of vandalism there. I'm not sure what to do about that - I did try reporting it one time, but I found the forms and documentation confusing and unclear, but my request for clarification was met with hostility, so now I don't bother, just note it in the edit reason. A propos that, rolling back more than one edit is possible, but the default message doesn't appear.
Seems like "smart: editing has been introduced, which really isn't smart at all.

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 14:02, wikitime= 06:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

At the very bottom of your contributions page is a line of tools. The first is "Subpages", and that shows a list of all sub-pages of your user page.
At the very top of your contributions page is a line that reads "For Johnmperry (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log)". The "uploads" link takes you to the (empty) list of your uploads to Wikipedia, and then the first line of that page has a link to the list of your uploads at Commons. Alternatively, any time you are logged in at Commons there is an "Uploads" link at the top right.
Obviously the hijacked page needs to be restored. If the new content has any merit at all, then the editor needs to be welcomed somehow and asked to submit the new page via the Article wizard. The most recent example I came across was Ryan Dobson. The first rewrite, by Dobstep (talk · contribs), contained unsourced and possibly libellous material, so I emailed oversight and had the edit hidden.
Try enabling the Twinkle tool in your preferences. If you use the Twinkle buttons to undo a set of bad edits, it pops open the user talk page; then you can use the Twinkle menus to leave an appropriate warning with only a few mouse clicks. Or, if you see a recent "final warning" there, you can use a different Twinkle menu to leave a correctly-formatted report at the vandalism notice board. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings for more about choosing warning levels. Note that the level one "warnings" are actually quite friendly, suitable for editors who may just be confused or unaware of Wikipedia policies.
I'm not seeing any big change to the editing interface this morning??

That's today's essay! I hope some of this is helpful. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1 is good.

2 a is not so good, as it includes a thumb of the image. All I want is a file-list, and basically I have to get a long contributions list when logged in to WM and print screen (to file).

I'll check out Twinkle

I'm glad you sorted out Eye-fi as I got stick from Stiki.

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 18:04, wikitime= 10:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For 2 there's also this tool which can give you this list which just has the names. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's also commons:Special:Log/upload. Fill in your user name in the "Performer" box which should give this.

BTW when referring to Wikimedia Commons, it's usually shortened to "Commons", not "Wikimedia", because there are several other Wikimedia projects, like Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (or "Meta" for short). Even the English Wikipedia is a Wikimedia project. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me on the Community Portal

I completely missed that they changed TAFI.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

AWB 5.5 released

Hi John! Just a friendly note to let you know that AWB 5.5 was recently released, which goes through SVN 8979. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

re "remember me" doesn't work problem (help desk, March 16)

Hi, I'm Rourke. I still have the same problem that I posted about on the Help desk 15 days ago -- Wikipedia still won't remember that I'm logged in even after I check the "remember me" box. I've tried logging in, then out, then logging back in again -- that doesn't work. It might have something to do with my browser settings (FFox 18.0.2) but I don't have any evidence that it's definitely a FFox problem and not a Wikipedia problem. Do you have any suggestions? Rourke (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_March_16#"remember me for 180 days" checkbox doesn't work - yes, we never resolved that one. Two thoughts, maybe:

I've just noticed this at Help:Logging in, "This feature will only work if your password was not generated by the Mediawiki software". Are you by any chance using a password that was emailed to you by the "I've forgotten my password" feature?

If you go to Tools > Options > Privacy > Show cookies while logged in to Wikipedia, you should see cookies for en.wikipedia.org and wikipedia.org. Do you? If you restart Firefox and look again, are they still there?

-- John of Reading (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Article

I have a article for review here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aaron_Hester 173.78.231.251 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll leave this for the regular reviewers. How does he pass WP:NGRIDIRON or ~~WP:COLLATH~~ WP:NCOLLATH? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC) fixed 16:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Asian history question

I would like to talk to Asia about the Dynasty that took over and what happened to the Ann Dong Kwon Family which was one of the oldest Families in Asia

If the Ann Dong Kwon Family Was One of the oldest Asian Families in the history of Asia, what happened to the Royalty and how did this new Dynasty take over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.230.148 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at the Humanities Reference Desk. Some of the volunteers there enjoy answering history questions and may be able to help you. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John of Reading. You have new messages at Talk:Amor Puro.
Message added 23:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Diva Knockouts 23:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

AWB help on feature requests & bug reports

Hi, for AWB bug reports and feature requests I am asking for your help, whenever you are able to give it (please treat this as an open invite so include other willing editors if you're aware of them). I think AWB needs a team of knowledgeable users to support the improvement of AWB. You are one of the editors I see doing this currently, I am asking for more of your help. We are limited in development resource so I'm asking for more help in areas that non-developers can support. So

For bug reports:

where the status is need information, we need to chase up the editor/s involved to get the required details.
where the bug is an exception, we need to know if/how it can be reproduced.
duplicate reports could be cleared

For feature requests:

where the status is need information, we need to chase up the editor/s involved to get the required details.
generally we need to make sure the feature request is clear, there is a link to the MOS/policy page/template documentation wherever needed, there is consensus for it.
if the feature request lacks consensus/is against policy we should archive it and notify the editor.
we should ideally prioritize feature requests. We could add a new parameter to the feature request template for this. I would like to see requests as high/medium/low based on criteria such as value added by feature/time saved for user/number of pages or templates affected. This will help to focus development effort and clear down unreasonable feature requests.

All of the above is up for improvement, we could discuss on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Dev. Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. Once upon a time I was fluent in C++ and knew a little C#, so, just maybe... -- John of Reading (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Another blast of hot air

How I've spent the last few days (weeks). I did make a stab at fixing broken links, but it was too difficult - they're not broken without reason. So instead I made my target a bit more modest, trying to clear the pages with missing references. That was usually much more straight forward, as most failures are either through straight vandalism, or generally not knowing about {{reflist}}. But the puzzling thing there is that probably half the entries, maybe more, have no fault. Presumably there is one or more background procedure which works it way through all the pages, and occasionally decides to flag one for no apparent reason. The only way I know to clear them off the list is by null edit, so the page is regenerated. Presumably by a different mechanism from the bot one, because it doesn't flag spurious errors.

It was particularly bad just before Easter, when overnight the count went from about 30 to a lot more than 200. There is no way of knowing which are the false negatives, you just have to work through. There are a couple of things I could suggest about the fault list page, where would be a good place? What it ideally needs is a method to go immediately to history for the pages, as that's usually the first thing to do, because it can only have been the last change (if any) which sent it bad. In addition I'd like to see some way of grabbing the page, because more than once, particularly when the list was short, I've made the necessary changes only to get into an edit conflict with someone else who has changed it too.

In the longer term I think wikipedia should consider not posting pages with errors - I don't quite understand how anyone can make any change but not check that it's error-free. But enough people don't. Including other menders. I usually take the opportunity to check out the page thoroughly, iron out any obvious wrinkles and check the citations. As far as I can tell, other people are just working through the list seeing how quickly they can clear it, which is not conducive to a good finished product.

I'm rather bemused too by the amount of dross which seems to be included. Recently it looked like someone had a bot which was adding every piddling village in eastern Europe and Turkey, places with nothing at all notable about them, and populations well below 500. I don't know how to flag those for deletion, but I certainly add {{notable}}.

Finally, on a personal note, I am puzzled by what counts as encyclopedic and what doesn't. The main focus of my attention was Bantayan Island, which Joannah Serah flagged as needing more citations in November. I worked on it a lot after Christmas, but when I put it live I then received a {{overly detailed}} flag and had about 25% removed by people with hammers. My idea is that an encyclopedia should contain a wide range of information, with references to where to get fuller information on particular sub-subjects. Other people have different ideas. (I did ask Joannah but never got a reply.) I just compare what I had with some of the ghastly pages I see.

Incidentally I have come across several user pages which contain badges such as "This user has patrolling rights", "This user has rollback rights". Etc. Do these actually mean anything?

One more thing - I'm less than impressed with Twinkle. And the helpful editor is very irritating in the way it keeps capitalising what it thinks are proper names. Just see if you can type i

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 18:45, wikitime= 10:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that covers a lot of points! Working down...

Broken links? Yes, most broken links won't be fixable. For some you might get lucky at Archive.org, otherwise you'll just have to leave the link tagged as dead: "In February 2006 this web site probably verified this sentence".

Null edits? I don't know why the category gets so far out of sync with the articles. I work on CAT:REF sometimes (it's up to 117 as I write this), and for some of those the solution is a null edit. A spike could be caused by vandalism to a template, damaging lots of articles at once; when someone repairs the template it can take a while for the job queue to sort out the mess.

Jumping to the history? If you enable WP:POPUPS you can fairly easily jump from any blue link to the corresponding history page; alternatively I bet if you asked nicely at WP:VPT someone would give you a script to append a "(history)" link to each entry on a category page. But when I'm working on CAT:REF I just open the article in a new tab, and then open the history in a second new tab; I'm then in a position to glance at the last few edits and to scroll down the article to find the error message.

Edit conflicts? Again, when working on CAT:REF I don't try to fix anything that has been edited in the last 15 minutes or so, in case the same editor is trying to solve the problem. Just once I've used the {{in use}} tag to protect myself against edit conflicts, when I could see that the fix was going to take me half an hour or so.

Not posting pages with errors? You can read about that at "Pending changes".

Villages? Per WP:NPLACE I think you are stuck with those.

Bantayan Island? There is an awful lot of unsourced information in that article. Commerce, transport, much of the history, most of the culture... Where has all the information come from?

For user rights see Wikipedia:User access levels.

The "helpful editor"? This must be something in your browser, as i hav no trubble righting nonsense in the edit window. I'm using Firefox, wich is adding red squiggly lines underneath menny of the words here, but it is not trying to correct anything for me. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Re : International Scout Peace Camp

Hello John. My apologize if i put in an unreliable source data. this is my first time on wikipedia. I now making a page for the international scout peace camp. Would you help me? Thank you for your feedback before. I'll find the news about the event — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldsPR (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For the article to exist, you'll need to add press coverage to show that the event is "notable", in the special Wikipedia usage of the word which you can read about at Wikipedia:Notability. Or there's a handy summary at WP:42. The daily current events are intended as an archive of the main news headlines of the day; I would be surprised if a gathering of 500 scouts attracted that level of international news coverage. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have found the news on the WOSM site. How can i add it to the editing page? i still don't quite understand it. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldsPR (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As a first step, try copying this to the bottom of the article:

== References ==

* [http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/asia_pacific/information_events/events/international_scout_peace_camp_2013_indonesia Announcement at www.scout.org]

But without evidence of *independent* press coverage, the event is not notable by Wikipedia standards and the article is unlikely to be accepted. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

doubt

hello bro,

if u may remember, it was you who welcomed me on wikipedia by posting on my talk page and you have also said that if i had some question, i can ask u. so please clear my doubt. THANKS IN ADVANCE

i had found that i am not able to edit some pages like the following page. I edit them but my changes are not visible. can u tell me why it is so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atif_Aslam

the above page says it is semi protected and can be edit by auto confirmed user. although i am an auto confirmed user, have contributed quite a lot on wikipedia, but i can not edit so.

please clear my doubt.

U CAN ANS ME WHEN U GOT FREE TIME. I KNOW U ARE NOT HERE TO CLEAR MY DOUBT BUT I AM ASKING U AS A FRIEND. I HAVE READ WIKIPEDIA HELP, BUT COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY ON SOME PAGES WHY EDITS ARE NOT VISIBLE. Arja36 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You managed to edit the page, but your edit wasn't visible for quite a subtle reason.

The box at the top right of the article is called an "infobox", and it is used to format the most important facts about the subject in a consistent way. The one used at Atif Aslam is called "Infobox musical artist". If you go to the page "Template:Infobox musical artist" you'll see a list of all the facts that it has been coded to display - name, date of birth, instruments, associated acts, and so on. Note that "spouse" isn't on that list. So although someone added "spouse = Sara Bharwana (m. 2013-present)", it didn't show up at all, and neither did your edits to the same parameter.

There's a long discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Spouse, partner, and children support. For now, the Atif Aslam article will have to manage by mentioning the marriage in the text of the article, and not in the infobox.

I hope that helps! -- John of Reading (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks bro, it really helped me. u made me understood clearly. will ask u in future if i will be having any doubt. can u provide me link where i can get information about various infobox. thanks Arja36 (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Try Help:Infobox. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

VPT

I was monitoring this, but as with most things the main action was in US time, at least 12 hours behind me, and after I'd already gone to bed (with a clear list!)

The main thing is that now I have a tool to hoover the list with, and very useful it is too. Wish I'd had it two weeks ago!

I'm not expecting anything to be found, not yet. I think it will need more monitoring, try to pinpoint times better. I see two main areas - (i) what process is causing items to be enqueued? (ii) why does it select items which haven't been changed in a while?

Meanwhile there is the tool. :-) John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 07:11, wikitime= 23:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've copied your comment over to Bugzilla so that the developers notice it. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen how long your signature is in the edit window? Why not just [[User:Johnmperry|<span style="color:darkgreen">John of Cromer in Philippines</span>]] for the first part? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Phew, where did that lot come from? I just used {{font}}, no subst:ing

I figured I'd need to sign into bugzilla

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 14:30, wikitime= 06:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For finding my and others' "the the" typos. —Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Only 1302 pages left in my current work list... -- John of Reading (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What to do? Action needed

There's a guy actively renaming a lot of Philippine pages. I think s/he should be stopped: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gian_de_la_cruz

and reverted

I don't know how to do it.

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 15:51, wikitime= 07:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

[My use of 'he' etc isn't meant to signify anything. It's quicker is all.]

Actually this is the user who persistently made nonsense edits to the pages. I sent him a uw‑3rr a couple of weeks ago. He had done it to other pages too, so looking at his contributions, he's taken copies of the pages he wanted and saved them into different names.

I'm sure it can all be unwound, just a pain. Calling pages "City of ..." is against the rules, and I don't expect others will be pleased to see whole provinces renamed.

I've copied this to others - I hope one of you is up!

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 16:06, wikitime= 08:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) S/he has stopped; those moves were all done yesterday. The first action is to ask nicely at User talk:Gian de la cruz. To revert a move, you just move it back, as has been done at Samar. The issue looks contentious; I found a long discussion at a Wikproject talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It was after midnight here. I only just looked at my watchlist. You mean move (rename) not rollback? Project discussion was 3 years ago, which is why I said it's against rules. Don't think my "nicely" will hack it. John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 16:31, wikitime= 08:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

help

i want to inform u about user " Wanurikahiu ".

this user is creating unnecessary articles and also had been adding irrelevant and unnecessary information to other articles. this can be verified by seeing his contributions and edits.
also i want to tell that his lot of edits has been deleted till now. this user also deletes notification given to him for his edits. someone has proposed deletion of his article and he just deleted that notification so others can not see that notification.

i have been watching his edits, i found that this user has created article for "Mashachapada Road". this Mashachapada Road is just a sub locality in "KASHIMIRA" locality in "Mira bhayandar" town/city. according to me and wikipedia rules and policy, there is no need to have article for just a street or sub locality. even some information provided by this user in this article is not correct.

no several bollywood stars live there.as told by him

again this user has created article for "Agarwal Green Village". again according to me, wikipedia should not have articles for a sub locality of "mira road" town/city. If this will be continued by him, then there will be articles for each road and sublocality/locality.

I AM TELLING U ALL THESE TO ASK U WHAT CAN BE DONE HERE, WHAT STEPS CAN BE TAKEN TO STOP HIM. he has been given warning by some users in the past, but he deletes all those notification.IF U CAN DO SOMETHING,THEN PLEASE DO.

note - I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THIS USER AND I WELCOME THIS NEW USER IF HE CONTRIBUTES SOMETHING GOOD, BUT CREATING ARTICLES FOR EACH AND EVERYTHING (irrelevant) ACCORDING TO ME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Arja36 (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wanurikahiu (talk · contribs)

OK, I've had a look. The easy one first: users are allowed to delete messages from their talk pages, though archiving is preferred (WP:OWNTALK). If a user deletes a message, that is taken as a sign that the message has been seen. And any experienced editor who is checking whether the user has received warnings will know to look in the history of the talk page.

A good rule-of-thumb for lists of "notable residents" is that the people must have Wikipedia articles. The actual guideline (WP:LISTPEOPLE) is a little more complicated. Either way, the person's link with the place must be confirmed by a reliable source. There are many articles where the guideline is not followed.

Any information that has been posted without a link to a reliable source may be removed, and once challenge, cannot be put back without a reliable source (WP:BURDEN). So feel free to remove unsourced information that you think is not correct - be sure to explain what you are doing by filling in the edit summary.

With no references and claiming to be about a single street, I have made one of my very rare deletion nominations. I was relieved to see that another editor had proposed it for deletion a week ago. This will make sure that the article is properly looked at.

Don't know. This isn't a "village" in the UK sense, but a well-defined English location having this number of people (I estimate 2000 or so according to this) would probably have an article. It certainly needs references.

An earlier article of this name was deleted as a "non-notable vanity bio", and this version looks about the same. The only reference is to a book published by Betascript Publishing, which can't really be used to establish notability; and the external links are to blogs, self-published sources, IMDb and the like.

I don't see any need to stop him. He's not being disruptive, he's only created a handful of articles, and the usual review processes will ensure that someone experienced sees these articles eventually.

I admit that I find article assessments very difficult indeed - see the bottom of my Userboxes page - so I wouldn't be surprised if other editors make a very different assessment. Still, I hope you find some of this is useful. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks John of Reading for all ur advice and suggestion.

since i live here (mira bhayandar) only, i found articles related to its street and sub locality irrelevant.

i want to tell u that "Agarwal green village" is just a sub locality or a small area in Mira Bhayandar town, which need not to be described as an article.

as i wanted advice on this issue,i consulted u.

u were talking about -" the usual review processes will ensure that someone experienced sees these articles eventually". what is this, can i review it as i am resident of this area only and knows well.

can u tell me to whom i should report if someone is adding irrelevant data.

AGAIN THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORT AND FOR REPLYING ME. Arja36 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles get reviewed in various ways. There are editors who specialise in looking at new articles (WP:NPP), and some who look through "maintenance categories", such as Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2013. You'll see that Agarwal Green Village is listed there because I added the {{unreferenced}} tag.

Yes, you can review articles too. The checklist at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Article namespace checklist may help, since its brief descriptions contain links to the other pages you might need. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)