User talk:John B123/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Draft:Portal:Prostitution/Selected article/18 you included material copied from Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Hi. I would generally agree with you, and do indeed add an attribution when copying from one article to another (or when translating from a different language WP). However there seems to be a convention that this is not needed when taking an extract from an article to show as a selected article in a portal. (I have looked at many sub-pages on different portals and none give attribution.) Clarification on this would be useful as there is a gang of anti-portal editors at the moment who, because of strength of numbers, are swamping MfD discussions and having portals deleted for the slightest reason.

On a side note, using "upright" instead of a size in pixels is normally a good idea. On portals, or in other situations using columns, the css controlling the layout works in absolute pixels. At certain screen resolutions, or more specifically the size of the viewing window if not full screen, images over 300px wide will break the layout. Although "upright=1" is normally 220px, it can be changed in preferences up to 400px. Doing so would break the layout at under 1,000px screen/window widths. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, attribution is required under the terms of our license. Just because it is sometimes neglected is no reason not to do it. For example, I remember there was a big fuss at the Signpost a year or two ago because excerpts on the "Featured content" segment were not being properly attributed. The result was adding attribution if prose excerpts were included: see for example Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-01-16/Featured content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Hi. Thanks for the clarification and thanks also for adding attribution to some of the pages. --John B123 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Prostitution

Portal:Prostitution, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Prostitution during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MV Agusta 600, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fontana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MV Agusta 750 S, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Smart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Transatlantic Trophy

Hello, John B123. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Transatlantic Trophy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 08:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

When I was patrolling a new article you created, MV Agusta F3 series, I noticed that as the creator of 80 mainspace articles, you may be eligible for the autopatrolled right, if you so wish to apply for it. Thanks for your many article creations! — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Hi. Thanks for the info. --John B123 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Red-light districts in Cambodia

A tag has been placed on Category:Red-light districts in Cambodia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi John B123, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MV Agusta Brutale series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcantara ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/MV_Agusta_Brutale_series

Sacred prostitution

Hi! I'm who opened the debate in Talk:Sacred prostitution, in case you don't remember me. I gave it time for more users to appear and lend their opinions, but I think that, after two weeks and only three voices, it is time to do something. Do you have any personal suggestion about it? Creador de Mundos (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Creador de Mundos: Hcheck to confirm] | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

List of pornographic performers by decade

Hello John B123. All right? I would like your suggestions HEREGuilherme Burn (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MV Agusta 350B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exhaust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hastings Pier

Your edit to Hastings Pier using the reFill 2 tool made a mess of the citation, attributing the newspaper article to a journalist named '|first=Hastings Independent|last=Press'. I have fixed this. Please check edits that you make using tools, especially when the tool is under development. Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sacred prostitution (II)

Hi. I'm sorry for coming again with this topic, as I am becoming certainly very tired of it as well, but it seems we have fallen in inaction without achieving anything. As I found Jheald's talk research too academic and massive for me to handle it alone, I talked to him, its gatherer, about helping me integrate it to the main article, but keeps very ostensibly ignoring me. I turn to you because you seem to be the most active user in the discussion, especially on this topic. I'm going to start remodeling it, if you want to collaborate. Thank you. Creador de Mundos (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Creador de Mundos: Hi, I too found the research too intensive to digest easily. I'm happy to have a look at it again and assist with updating the article. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Well then. Firstly, do you believe more adequate that we start working on the current article, or should we go to an earlier version like this? Creador de Mundos (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should revert to the revision you linked to and update from there. --John B123 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so. Now that I think about it too, I suggest we use my sandbox (as I see yours is busy), which I just prepared with the text from the revision, in order to make it easier. Creador de Mundos (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. One thing I have had in the back of my mind; although modern writings cast doubts about sacred prostitution and there seems little written recently to support it as conventionally understood, this is often the case. Research tends only to focus on new ideas, not uphold existing ones. Researchers don't get paid to verify the status quo. Although there are many modern pieces casting doubt on sacred prostitution, it doesn't neccasarily follow that is the view of all experts in the field. Take for example Jack the Ripper, every year a new book is published with new theories of his identity. Whilst we need to include the latest views, they shouldn't overpower the article. I think in each section (area/era), we need to give the conventional view (which is well referenced) and then the opposing views, keeping it balanced. --John B123 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree. If we remember one of Heald's source quotes ("a fraction of female gender researchers" vs. "moderate scholars"), it seems the opposing views are not so overwhelmingly powerful as Naugrith made it look. After all, he was forced to quote only a handful of authors (Budin, etc) over and over through the article in order to give out that impression, and we know gender researchers often become very vocal minorities. I think it would be good that the article's forefront text mentioned this debate reflecting its current proportions: conventional ways, recently challenged by a fraction of people from that political spectrum. I believe it's the most faithful synopsis of the current debate.

A thing I have in the back of my own mind is that this article doesn't contain modern philosophical views about sacred prostitution other than politically charged debates about its historicity. As you can guess from my username, I'm active in the Spanish-speaking Wikipedia as well, and I recently created its own SP article by translating our working revision; however, I added there a new section on this topic out of some research I did. I find incredibly interesting how some sex workers, psychoanalists and neo-pagans venerate the concept of SP regardless of its historicty. I think we should add this to the English-speaking version after balancing the article. Creador de Mundos (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The ‎Visión moderna section is certainly worth adding. I'm impressed at your ability to write well in two languages, I can just about get by speaking French, but couldn't write anything that would be acceptable. My Spanish is even worse. --John B123 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Haha, gracias, amigo. I'm a native Spanish-speaker, but English is currently the empire's language, so it really pays off to have a good understanding of it. I also think that, at least on a written medium, it is easier for a Spanish-speaker to master English than vice versa. I should say my French doesn't go beyond the basic verbs, though. Speaking about our project, I just added my "Visión moderna" to the sandbox, along with a foretext containing Heald's "Babylon and Assyria" section and a synopsis of the debate. If you approve what I wrote, we can move on the next sections. Creador de Mundos (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

PD: By the way, I completed some other info in the sandbox from Heald's research. It seems most of our heavy work will be at the "Hebrew Bible" and some other derivated in the Ancient Near East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creador de Mundos (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. It looks good to me. I might be inclined to tone down the second paragraph of the lead section slightly, changing "while modern gender researchers challenge those views" to "while some modern gender researchers challenge those views". --John B123 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it, as I agree, even although those sometimes seem to be many... By the way, I have screened Heald's contribution in order to integrate all useful info that is not part of superfluous academic debate (although, sadly, he focused mostly in the Biblic part). Anyway, I will be busy from tomorrow until Monday, so feel free to edit the sandbox in any way you see fit. Creador de Mundos (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I should have some time over the weekend so will try to contribute to the update. --John B123 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:French law to penalize clients of prostitution

Hello, John B123. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "French law to penalize clients of prostitution".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 12:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sacred prostitution (III)

Well, it seems you certainly had some days of work! Thank you for all the effort. What's the current state of our version in your opinion? Do you believe we need to add or work something more, especially from Heald's? Creador de Mundos (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but you deserve the praise really, I've just been sorting out the references. Apart from sorting out the remaining refs to use short footnotes, I think it's there. The modern theories have been added but without them overpowering the article, and the article is balanced. --John B123 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think I did so much. At least I got the impression I could have done more, but Heald's load was not diverse enough. In another order of things, I left a paragraph in italics in the Babylonian section (the one with Budin, Assante and the gender squad), as it was in the article's past revision but I read somewhere in the talk page that it was misquoted or wrong in relation to its sources. If you believe the article is good, I think that paragraph is the last thing to fix before we can replace the current revision with the content of my sandbox. Creador de Mundos (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

All of the refs are sorted now. In the italic paragraph you mention, I would remove Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge from the "doubters", as their view, as stated later in the paragraph, SP occurred in the Near East, just not the Greek or Roman worlds. Otherwise good to go I think. --John B123 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

What I meant is that the paragaraph was not entirely correct, but I did a bit of research and it seems to be true after all. Delforge is still skeptical on sacred prostitution at all, though, and agrees with Budin in the belief that chroniclers might have confused SP with non-remunerated sacred sex. However, I think we could dedicate that paragraph to this debate. I have found this article, which is a bit harder on our friend Stephanie, and it seems Leslie Kurke supports SP as well. Creador de Mundos (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It might be as well to update that paragraph as you suggest. --John B123 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have it done, including some relocation. If you want to contribute a bit more before we make it official, feel free to do so. Creador de Mundos (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph you updated is defiantly an improvement. I've added a couple of refs to it. It look ready for the mainspace now. --John B123 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Well then! Now a technical question: what should we do with the neutrality/POV template at the top of the article? Can we simply erase it with our new revision, or does it need any special process to be removed? Creador de Mundos (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It can just be erased as this is a new version addressing the issues that caused it to be added. --John B123 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Then it's done. I have just replaced the article with it.

I feel this work might not be fully over yet, if anything because I doubt our revision will not attract some comments. However, if it is over, I must say that it has been a pleasure to work with you for all those weeks and months, and that I will be glad to repeat it some day (except if it involves more tedious controversies, haha) if our respective fields of specialty in Wikipedia ever overlap again. Greetings and thank you. Creador de Mundos (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I doubt this is over yet as the more radical editors will want the emphasis of the article to reflect the views of Budin et al. We're in a good position now to honestly argue that the article is neutral and balanced. Thank you for your kind works, and I assure you the thoughts are reciprocated and would be pleased to work together in the future. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

SP III-B

We meet again, huh? As we expected, it seems this goes again. Here there are Naugrith's new comments. Creador de Mundos (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Creador de Mundos: thanks for the heads-up. --John B123 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Aaaand we come again to the discussion. This looks like the Neverending Story. Greetings. Creador de Mundos (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Confusion

Hi. I think you mistook my edit. I actually restored the page to how it was before disruption. So I was the R in BRD, not the B. D comes after R.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: What edit? --John B123 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I restored the opening paragraph on the Prostitution page to the way it's been for some time.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit with the summary "Removed name calling"? As you point out, the "names" are already in the infobox, so your edit and summary seems pointless. You seem to be determined to edit war with myself and other editors on that article, please don't dress it up by claiming you're restoring under BRD. --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not warring. I restored the page. There were a load of names added in the last 24 hours and it was silly and never ending. I have never edited that page before restoring it today. Restoring under BRD is exactly what I did. How is that 'dressing up?'.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Today you have reverted edits by two editors on that page. Since by your own admissions you have taken no interest in the page previously, your sudden interest and opposition to other editor's contributions brings it's own conclusions. --John B123 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The names were added by an editor who's currently in an ANI raised by lots of editors for chronic disruption. When were all these names added? And how do you suppose BRD does not apply?NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That explains it, you are trying to revert edits by a particular editor. Pity you messed up when you reverted the edit on that page by Beyond My Ken that was actually reverting Anthony22's edit. To then leave a message on General Ization's talk page after he reverted your edit claiming you "restored the page to how it was a few days ago" is unbelievable. --John B123 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. @NEDOCHAN, see your Talk page. You don't get a pass. General Ization ^Talk 17:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert Beyond my Ken. Check again. It looks a bit like that as there was the same number of characters. He took 150. I took 150. Have another lookNEDOCHAN (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you actually look? And to say it's 'unbelievable' that I said I restored the page? I did. Crossed wires.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User Beyond My Ken removed "competencies= Physical attractiveness, seduction skills, interpersonal skills.
Male prostitutes usually require an ability to maintain an erection.". Your next edit added "competencies= Physical attractiveness, seduction skills, interpersonal skills. Male prostitutes usually require an ability to maintain an erection." How is that not reverting his edit? --John B123 (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Because I didn't revert his edit. I restored the LGV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution&diff=904728707&oldid=901432383NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a saying, when you're in a hole stop digging. --John B123 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I said I restored the page. I did. Wires get crossed. Never mind.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please give me a diff of the "consensus"

Prostitution in Oceania. Tony (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC) And the one for Asia. Tony (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Prostitution in Oceania#Table --John B123 (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that's simply about whether the tables were to survive: nothing about flags. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Appropriate_use_2 and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes. Tony (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Flags were included in the proposal to replace the table, which was agreed. --John B123 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that's BS. Next you'll claim that the bolded country-names and the green background have "consensus". (i) Flags were not mentioned. (ii) You and one other editor a consensus do not make. (iii) The guideline, linked above, discourages use of flags for mere decoration. Unless you can come up with a proper consensus—and one that is strong enough to override the central guideline, I'm removing the flags. Flags and prostitutes??? Tony (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a guideline, not written in stone, see WP:5P5. That aside, WP:INFOBOXFLAG, clearly states "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes.", so in this case there is no conflict with the guidelines. As you have made an edit, which has been reverted, then WP:BRD applies, and the stable version of the article should remain until there is agreement to change it. --John B123 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi John,
I just wanted to thank you for your amazing efforts in writing Marital rape laws by country. A year ago, I started expanding and sourcing this list inside the subsection of Marital rape#Legislation by country, and you soon joined me, followed by a few others. On the talk page we discussed whether to create a separate article when the list grew very large, but we couldn't agree on the title and the shape it would take. I then decided to step away and see what would happen. I'm pleasantly surprised by this new article, I see you put enormous work into it. This is no doubt the most comprehensive list on this topic on the Internet, so we now know very well where the world stands on the issue. Would it be a good idea if I created a map for this list, in order to visualise the situation around the world? I would like to put it in the top right corner, is that okay with you? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. The discussion seem to peter out on Talk:Marital rape. When I got the draft to more or less where it is now, I did post on the talk page to get a consensus on format, title etc. but got no reply. I left it for a while to see if I got any response, and in the meantime someone else moved it from draft to where it is now.

I think a map would be a worthwhile addition if you are able to make one. I also think it needs an introduction paragraph or two at the start of the article. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It's good to see things worked out. :) I have just made this map, do you think it is fitting for the article? File:Marital rape laws by country.svg. Regards, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well done, it looks good. My only comment would be that perhaps Antarctica needs to be left blank as it has no laws as such? Cheers --John B123 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I initially had left Antarctica blank, but I reasoned that all states that make territorial claims to Antarctica have criminalised marital rape, so I reasoned there is a de facto ban on marital rape there and thus coloured it green. But if you find it better to leave it blank I could do that. PS: I hope you like the new introduction I wrote; feel free to edit it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The introduction looks good but could do with being referenced. My preference would be to leave Antarctica blank. Whilst I don't disagree with your logic, these are claims rather than territories so I'm not sure if the claiming country's laws apply, or it may be similar to being on board a ship on the ocean where the ship's country of registration's laws are in force. That aside, not all of Antarctica has been claimed. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I added references to the introduction, slightly modified the text, added an opening sentence and made a separate heading for the introduction. I also added the map on the top right corner with a legend. Are you okay with this? Also, shall we agree to consistently use British English spelling and dmy dating for this page? Now the text alternates between 'criminalised' and 'criminalized' etc. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The page looks really good now, well done. I've changed 'criminalize' and 'criminalise' etc and added the British English and dmy tags. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:BSA B40

I've moved your article to the title I think you intended (that colon is important). PamD 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks, I don't know how I missed the colon. --John B123 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision of my edit in Nordic Model Approach to Prostitution

Dear John B123,

I don't know why you reversed my edit. The fact that is stated in the abstract is one out of many in the report that is linked as a source: Over the last decade, the proportion of individuals in Sweden who had bought and sold sexual services had remained relatively constant over time (approximately 7.5% of Swedish men between the ages of 18 and 65 which was a low figure compared to other Nordic and European countries); • Public support for the Swedish Act prohibiting the Purchase of Sexual Services had remained consistently strong; • Street prostitution had been cut by more than half since the estimate made in 1995, which was 650 women at the time; • The number of escort advertisements had increased markedly from 304 to 6,965. However, this growth could have resulted from an increased use of advertising rather than an increased number of individual sex workers. • Most sex workers were not Swedish: 77% of escort services advertisements were for foreign sex workers and most street prostitution involved foreigners. Since the introduction of the ban on the purchase of sexual services, street prostitution in Sweden had reduced by half, and there was nothing to indicate that the ban had diverted street prostitution to the Internet; • There were no in-depth studies available about the extent of indoor prostitution in which contact is made at restaurants, hotels, sex clubs or massage parlours (and so no data or evidence to suggest that these had increased). It therefore concluded that “as far as we can see” prostitution had not increased in Sweden since the implementation of the ban, therefore it was reasonable to assume that criminalization had helped to combat prostitution.

These are all facts that are listed in the linked report. The editor did not include the fact that the report mentions that the increase in advertisements does not mean that the number of sex workers increased. So this was clearly not neutral editing. And I wanted to remove the paragraph because you either include all bullet points listed or you stay general. And it's a short article overall that's why it should stay general rather than stating tons of numbers without explaining the statistical context.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 17:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sparrow (麻雀): The whole section is composed of extracts from reports, only using the ones that supported how successful the Nordic Model is. I have tried to put across a more balanced point of view in the article after the lead section. You have already removed the section from the UK Government findings that they are doubtful the NM actually does what it claims, now you wish to suppress the possibility of off-street prostitution haven risen in Sweden. Whilst you may argue the rise in advertisements doesn't mean an increase in prostitutes, equally you could argue the number of street prostitutes has fallen because they are now more discrete and are not noticed by the police. We can make the effect of the legislation mean whatever we like by means of ifs and buts. --John B123 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello John B123, it is true that I think that the Nordic Model is the most promising law system yet in combating prostitution. However the abstract about Iceland clearly states that it failed in that country. Also the abstract about Norway says that the model creates problems for the prostitutes. So it isn't only positive. And the report that you used as a source yourself said, that an increase in advertisements doesn't equal an increase in indoor prostitution. So I added that now. Yes you can spin everything always to support your opinion. In any case time will tell what model will prevail and spread in the end.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 14:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Punternet

Thank you. its often very hard to work out where websites are.Rathfelder (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: No problem. To complicate things further, Punternet's new owners are a company registered in The Bahamas and the servers are in Iceland. If you need any help on other website let me know. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Did you know that best advice I received on Wikipedia was ignore ignore ignore? - Sad list, this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. The list is indeed sad. --John B123 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And that is after archiving many ... - Did you know that Nikkimaria explained "contentious" to me? - Did you known that once a friend and I were taken to ANI because of something we said to Nikkimaria, and the response was that if Nikkimaria didn't complain herself there was little reason for admin action? We usaually get along well, see her present talk. We argued a lot in the old days but have better things to do ;) - The nicest (and possibly shortest) discussion was Talk:Siegfried (opera). The last discussion on her page was continued on Project opera, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the info. --John B123 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

...and I appreciate your efforts on the article about a certain chilly conflict. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lingzhi2: Thanks. I think the citations are just about sorted now. --John B123 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Not used as ref"

Hey did you see my quick little "I'll just delete everything and see what doesn't cause errors" edit? I almost got trouted for it. But it's here. I was gonna fix those but my better half has me doing chores. I can do some later, if there are any left! A million thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I've already removed entries in "Books", "Journals", "News" and "Web" that aren't used for references. As the references use sfn, then everything that is used in those sections should have a harv anchor. As there are no harv errors (such as "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBeloff1947"), then everything with a harv anchor is used. Going to each of the sections in turn and going to edit and then preview, will give a preview isolated from the rest of the page. This will cause harv errors to come up where entries have harv anchors. Any entry without a harv error are therefore not used by refs so can be deleted.

I hope this makes sense, and assumes you have harv errors displayed. If not see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to enable. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

PS I think the "Further reading" section is unnecessary given the number of books and journals already on the page. --John B123 (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes further reading sucks in general.

Harv, you say? Did you say Harv?

This editor uses reviewsourcecheck to find errors in the references and notes.

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You obviously already know about harv errors! --John B123 (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk page headers

Hi. I've noticed your edits on quite a few talk pages, and I have to ask: is it really necessary to add {{talk header}} to talk pages without any active discussion, or {{WikiProject banner shell}} to those with two WikiProject banners? This isn't inline with the guidance on the template documentation, and can clutter watchlists. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Hi. I've been going through doing some housekeeping on articles tagged with Sex work task force. These are, to some people, controversial articles, so I feel the talk header is justified. Adding the WikiProject banner shell keeps the main information on projects "above the fold" so you can see at a glance without the need to scroll down. Apologies for padding out your watchlist, but I've nearly finished this one-off exercise. (FA, GA, B, C and Start class articles are done and I'm close to finishing the stub class articles). --John B123 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. (FYI, notifications won't work if you add the ping in a later edit that doesn't also include a new line and signature). --Paul_012 (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Thanks for the info, I didn't realise about the pings. --John B123 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Helen Wood

Hi. If you're going to reinsert the content into Helen Wood (television personality), please don't do so without first identifying a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for sources that are generally reliable or unreliable. Thanks. Guy (help!) 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see you already did. Thanks! Guy (help!) 19:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I did err on the side of caution with the rest of the the text, although whilst generally the Daily Star is not a RS, I'm not sure that applies to a columnist announcing that this is the final column she is going to wrote for the Star? --John B123 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that's really more of an UNDUE thing I reckon. If nobody other than the tabloid talks about her writing for the tabloid then neither should we. I am very much not a fan of "X wrote for $DUNGHEAP, source, X writing in $DUNHGEAP". Guy (help!) 19:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I can understand that, there are probably very few people who care when she wrote her last column! --John B123 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Manual of style on section headers

Hi! Have a look at MOS:SECTIONS. Section headers aren't to have links, footnotes or citations. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bri. What's this in connection with? --John B123 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I was cleaning up Generative_adversarial_network and I might have read this diff backwards, sorry. Feel free to delete this note. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: No problem! Cheers --John B123 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)