Jump to content

User talk:John/Archive 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your userpage update

[edit]

Don't ya mean - 1 January 2015? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes I do. Thank you. --John (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

[edit]

Dear John,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thank you and the same to you! --John (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WT:MOS#Language question

[edit]

Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WT:WikiProject Astronomy#Language question. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That anybody thinks "a number of" is better prose than "some" astonishes me, but I suppose it takes all sorts. On Wikipedia we are not paid by the word, and where meaning is similar, shorter is better. As regards the "brighter... brighter ... brighter.... brighter" question, I always like to see the TFA blurb look like brilliant prose. While there can be a danger of elegant variation if the changes are random, I stand by both these edits and intend to continue to improve TfA blurbs as long as I have the power to do so. Thanks for the ping. --John (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm not looking to take away anyone's power ... I'm looking to go in the opposite direction ... I'd like to see the TFA paragraphs (blurbs) become some kind of group project, and you're certainly invited to the group, but I don't know yet what kind of pushback I'm going to get on that. On these two points: there's at least a suggestion in AmEng dictionaries that "several" and "a number of" might not be interchangeable, that they're both vague but that the second is vaguely more than the first, so I haven't previously been swapping one for the other; but personally, I'd prefer to rewrite "a number of" when I see it, and it looks like we've got support for that. On the second point, I liked your switch to "stronger" but agreed with the suggestions over at WT:ASTRONOMY, so I've added the word "apparent". - Dank (push to talk) 05:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was User:Bencherlite about a year ago who invited me to copyedit these blurbs as they come out, so I consider myself already invited, but thanks for endorsing the invitation. As a mathsy/sciency sort of a guy I particularly hate "a number of". Not only is it lazy, longwinded, pretentious and vague, but it is meaningless when read literally, as pi, zero, negative nine and the square root of negative one are all perfectly respectable numbers. You may be right that the habit of turgid and pompous prose is stronger among Americans (I worked as an English teacher in California for a number of years and can vouch anecdotally for this) but it is not a habit to be encouraged and is not compatible with the criterion of "brilliant prose", I would maintain. --John (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We may have gotten off on the wrong foot here, which surprises me, but I don't see anything here we can't work out ... our copyediting sentiments usually agree, and when they don't, there are ways to get answers. I'm tied up for a couple of days, I'll come back to this soon. One thing: I have never said anything remotely like "the habit of turgid and pompous prose is stronger among Americans". - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Dan and sorry to have given you that impression. I care passionately about language as I know you do too. Disagreement is important in order that we can drag things forwards. You're right, you said you had seen "a suggestion in AmEng dictionaries that "several" and "a number of" might not be interchangeable" and I paraphrased it to "the habit of turgid and pompous prose is stronger among Americans". I certainly wouldn't want to cause any sort of offence as obviously no one country has a monopoly on good or bad writing. I too am rather busy and it will be next week before I am back in my routine again. Take care, --John (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, agreed with all of that. The only edit of yours (of many) that I'd prefer that you revert is this one. If I understand correctly, your point is that the word "apparent" is redundant and this isn't something that should confuse people. I think what the people at WT:ASTRONOMY are saying is that they prefer the word because (by implication, in their experience) people do get confused about the difference, even if they shouldn't ... and that's my experience too. I don't read the word as strictly redundant here. And it's a word that people familiar with astronomy will be looking for to give them confidence that we know what we mean. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me have a look at that and see what I can do. --John (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure to work with you. These blurbs are probably too important to be done by one person or a small group. Generally the more eyes the better. --John (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, John. Btw, two of your edits got reverted; "brightest" and "noted" got re-inserted. If you're wondering what I'm going to do about it ... I don't know yet, I need a few more days. I know what I'm looking for ... I'm looking for a lot of people who know something about the prose standards at both TFA and their home wikiproject, so they can help explain practices that often don't make sense to wikiprojects (and sometimes aren't followed at FAC). I'm thinking about how to get there. Your thoughts are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. Repeating the word brightest over and over is just clunky writing. Saying something is notable on either a Featured Article or its blurb is beyond the pale. I have re-reverted this one and left the user a note. We have a few days before this one is due to run. Let's hope it can be resolved. --John (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update: I feel some sense of confidence that we'll be able to get some kind of process at TFA that will handle these things in some kind of bite-sized chunks that the community can digest. It won't happen overnight; I'll try to bring a few things to people's attention, say, once per week. I hope you'll be involved. I'm asking everyone for patience. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --John (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

[edit]

RAF

[edit]

Furthermore, the top already links to the RAF (disambiguation) page. It is sufficiently adequate without complicating things further. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still quite new here. I will fix up the error you made (you should have used undo rather than revert) and we can continue this conversation in article talk. --John (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed

[edit]

Check your email, I need copy of a deleted page. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... now I'm feeling stalked...

[edit]

Here - and I love the "Add something, get reverted, readd it and then discuss" tactic. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking. Give me a day or so. --John (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ideomatic matter

[edit]

Hello again John! I hope You have had a pleasant Christmas and New Year. I cannot really comrahend that we now are in the 16th year of this millenium, the 1999-2000 New Year feels almost as yesterday. To the matter, I've written about the HH Ferry route between Elsinore (Danish: Helsingør) and Helsingborg. It's far from finished. But as I read the lead , I noticed that I had written "line" were it really should be "route" (the route has been operated by many sipping lines through the history. But as I didn't want to use the word "route" finishing one sentence and begin the next with "The short route", I began looking for a synonym. First I thought of "path" but discovered and choose the word "itinerary" (a word I've never even heared before). So my question is, is "itinerary" ok, entirely wrong or perhaps too difficult (There are word in my native Swedish I don't comprahend and hence assume such words exists also in the very synonyme rich Engling language) Any possible comment would be appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at it and I am confident that I can improve it by copyediting it. I will try to look in the next few days. --John (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That wood be nice, thanks! If there are spelling errors like "ertor" instead of "error", I want to tell You that I have got a disturbing problem with my right eye. It's like looking in water. It came after (not due to) I began wrighting this article.
Aside of the article, would You say that the word "itinerary" is understood as "route" by a majority of British people. I think this is the first time ever I've used a word of which I never before had heared of. Boeing720 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of May 3, 1791

[edit]

Hi John. Happy New Year! Do you think this article is ready for a new FAC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am on holiday for the next couple of days. I should be back to normal by Tuesday or Wednesday and will give your question the attention it deserves then. --John (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year John!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

John,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Thanks a lot! --John (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

[edit]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

Oh really? I am sorry to hear that. What a shame. --John (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

[edit]

Editswikifornepali claims that Editors in the talk page has been vandalizing my rights, and imparting false knowledge and propaganda, he must be talking about me and Arthur Rubin as we had recently commented on the sections that he had made. You must see [1]. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like he is eager for a block. This is[2] clearly disturbing, and he used that word(vandalize) again without even discussing the changes that were already being discussed.[3] You had told him to know the meaning of Wikipedia:VAND as well.[4] He was aware of sanctions and he was told that he should not insert these changes if they have been removed once.[5] Apart from that, his misuse of talk page is also evident, both Talk:Ayurveda and my user-talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --John (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks almost normal and it doesn't link to any of the actual restrictions of the page, users may still think that they are allowed to revert up to 3 times every 24 hours. I think it should be:
Extended content
You can also mention any other rules. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that I cannot change it? Only admins or template editors can. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Clerk Maxwell - request for arbitration

[edit]

Hi, Here is a heads-up of Martin Hogbin's attempt to add a request for arbitration (mentioning you), it did not work first time so he is seeking help here and referencing this proposed content.

(redacted)

Best wishes, FF-UK (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --John (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a tad concerned about this external-link, provided. Not certain if it's allowable under WP:OUTING. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I've removed it. --John (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Infobox nationality of people from the UK and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

Thanks. --John (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notification

[edit]

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

[edit]

Activity update

[edit]

I'm sorry as I know there are things I said I would look at here. Since we got back from our New Year holiday, a family member has been ill and while every thing is fine, this constrains the time I can give to Wikipedia. I hope to be back up to speed soon. --John (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Dominus Vobisdu

[edit]

Some people just never give up? User Dominus Vobisdu's recent comment at Talk:Ayurveda[10]
It seems he understood to revert his own comment, but there has got to be a line before even posting one's comments in the first place. Just for your attention in case that the user continues similar behaviour. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. --John (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it standard practice for fringe editors to complain about strongly emotional comments which aren't personal attacks, but which they find offensive because they are defending the dangerous practices condemned by the commenter? Do such complaints do any good, especially since the editor self-reverted what could be considered a minor violation of WP:TALK? Or...is there some history here? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bullrangifer, you can edit others post when you have their permission and they have never objected in the past. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can't know that, and that sets up a rather dangerous situation for both of you. The result of such a situation is that you end up being treated as the same person/sock/meat puppet. I have noticed that in practice you practically are anyway. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jayaguru-Shishya's comments do confuse a lot, just like the above one, after reading it I thought that Dominus had actually posted here. Previously as well I had thought for sometime that John had posted on Kww's talk(page) when he had blocked other user, few days after I had properly read that Jayaguru had only copied John's post over there. If he only use diff rather than bringing whole material from one page to other, it would be less confusing. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how it can be confusing. In such situations, I copy the content without using their functional signature. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a manner of speaking, "Lyhyestä virsi kaunis" (Finnish), "Lo bueno, si breve, dos veces bueno" (Spanish), "Brevity is the soul of wit" (English). Cheers! ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If possible - urgent help, please

[edit]

Someone has put "my" article LB (car ferries) up to speedy delation. The user seems to think that everything is covered in HH Ferry route, but LB is just one of several operators (1955-81), and are in my mind importaint since they challanged the DSB monopoly. Even if an article about a specific operator on the route, by nature overlaps the article about the route as such, I fail to see why a user has put the article up for speedy deletion. A shipping line isn't a route and the same route can have several competing shipping lines. If possible , could You please have a look at LB (car ferries) and if this really calls for speedy deletion. I find it horrobly wrong. Cheers in any case. Boeing720 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again John ! The urgency degree dropped fastly, as I got help from Diannaa within minutes ! But nothing prevents You from haveing a look, if so would like and have the time for. Kind regards Boeing720 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Not urgent, I see you're busy ... what do you think of Montana's change from "... known ..." to "influential"? Until we get a process at TFA that works better than the one we have now, I'm inclined to just grab for solutions that keep people reasonably happy, as long as people don't think these quick choices don't set some kind of precedent. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than "notable". --John (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this ... and thought of you

[edit]

[11] Two Daily Mails, two Daily Mirrors and, as a piece de reistance a citation to the bloody Daily Star of all things! I mean, really.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I heartily approve. --John (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was assessed as B-class! My word. I have cleaned up a bit more of the article, but frankly doing so is a thankless task when every time I try and search for a source for a fact, the top five hits all seem to be The Mail. I despair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Mail is a rubbish source and I applaud you for taking it out. If it hasn't appeared in serious media, it should not be discussed on BLPs on our project. --John (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are still cases where you might have to use The Mail eg : "Writing in the Mail, 'x' said 'y', but writing in the Guardian, 'z' claims 'x' actually meant 'p'", or "in an exclusive interview for The Mail, Tamara Foursquare-Teapot said she ...." - but most of the time it's unnecessary. However, by far my favourite dismissal of tabloid sources must be this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

[edit]

Arbitration case request declined

[edit]

You were named in a case request Infobox_nationality_of_people_from_the_UK which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The committee concluded that one issue in the case was content, which is outside the remit of the committee, and the remaining behavioral issues should be handled by the usual processes. The arbitrators comments can be found at the Permalink to arbitrators decisions For the arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help

[edit]

please tell me how to deal with a stubborn immature editor. Look at the Universe article. I know you probably don't know much about cosmology, but still, can you at least copy edit the lead? "molecules" and "subatomic particles" for example, are already included in "matter". And "wave duality" is simply ridiculous to add there. Please. Feel mercy of the future readers Tetra quark (don't be shy) 02:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the Universe lead is being discussed at talk:Universe. In the mean time, John, please have a look at TQ's recent revert of my edits at Galaxy. It speaks for itself. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also now note that TQ removed my comment at WikiProject:Astronomy, in which I invited editors to contribute at talk:Universe. This has since been reverted by someone else.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tetra quark. In saying "...a stubborn immature editor." could be seen to violate WP:NPA, where repeated personal attacks could lead to sanctions including blocks. You have recently done this here.[12] Please desist doing this practice, especially as a guest on someone else's User Page. Please always be polite when engaging with other Users, which applies to me and everyone!
Doing this on an Administrator's page under an article 3RRR Warning [13] and active an "Edit warring / content dispute" on Universe page is very ill-advised. Reverting ten edits all at once of Isambard Kingdom is provocative. Here one or two edits might be questionable, but not ten. Any editor would be aggravated by this! I note neither of these current change were discussed on the Talk:Galaxy by either Tetra quark or Isambard Kingdom. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unblocked

[edit]

I'm so annoyed and embarrassed I had to go through all this. Being temperamental is really a bad characteristic I have. Well, I'm back to wikipedia editing and I hope to get my AWB permission back soon, as I believe I was using it in a fair way etc. but whatever. I also wish that the Universe article was unprotected so I could add a couple of images I've got that are illustrative and stuff. I wouldn't get into an edit war again, if that's your concern.

Thanks and sorry for all this inconvenience Tetra quark (don't be shy) 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. I am sorry I had to block you. --John (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: @Jpgordon:

Tetra quark is undergoing edit warring again. [14] with Kudzu1. The disruptive edits are mostly trivial here, but there is at least an attempt, of sorts, for consensus appears here.[15]
I'm concerned more with the disregard towards other editors. I.e. Tetra quark states to Exoplanetaryscience when reverting "Thanks, but the sentence is not well punctuated and also it is unnecessary. We assume that people are going to read the article."
Edit by Exoplanetaryscience was incorrect, due to punctuation, but rather than correcting it, Tetra quark just reverted it. Saying "We assume that people are going to read the article.", is unnecessary and insulting. Comments on the "Ceres (dwarf planet): Revision history" is enough support. [16]
Perhaps, trying WP:1RR or WP:0RR might be suitable action for a short while, and this would reenforce the need to some conciliatory consensus among editors instead of just alienating them. Really, the only attitude I see by Tetra quark is "get out of my way", with no sign of reasonable understanding or contrition when it comes to editing articles. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grimm (politician)

[edit]

Has two three editors reinserting the "fucking" quote - which I had thought was settled quite a while back. Edit summary for one says "not really" in response to my edit summary that it was already settled. Frankly, I find the use of "fucking" abhorrent, but also find its repeated re-insertion into a BLP to also be abhorrent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Third editor jumped in -- seems to be a "fucking" convention there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this was discussed and agreed in March and April 2014. Has anything changed since then? --John (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - an IP suddenly appeared, re-added it. I removed it per the prior decisions. Third person enters now saying "Why was this removed? His direct quote is obviously more accurate than someone paraphrasing him" Ni idea why the three thought they could simply by force of numbers undo what was decided not all that long ago - especially since one had actively participated in the prior discussions on all fronts, and seems to have forgotten how WP:CONSENSUS works. Sigh. Collect (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tch. I am off to bed but I will have a look at this in the morning. --John (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted at Talk:Michael Grimm (politician). Let us see what compromise we can come to. --John (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC was started -- and it even claims Reuters stated as fact that Grimm said the words, although Reuters said it was only in the transcript and that the recording was "inaudible" in any event <g>. And one editor even asked me for a "cite" for a direct quote fromWP:BLP <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me up to date. Please ping me again if anything else happens there. --John (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was accused of lying (I suppose) when I quoted WP:BLP by a person who has edited "hundreds of BLPs" <g> and I still wonder how anyone can assert what someone precisely says in an "inaudible recording" (I tried listening - it is almost entirely inaudible except for the "break you in half" quote). Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now accused of reading and digesting pretty much nothing at all on the topic by what I had assumed were knowledgeable editors. Cheers -- I find such dicta excreta to be wertlos. Collect (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

[edit]

one last thing

[edit]

Is it ok to do dozens of edits in a row like this guy is doing on Sun? Tetra quark (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's fine. Here is the overall diff. Looks like modest article improvement and copyediting to me. --John (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The history page kinda looks worse than an edit war to me Tetra quark (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see what I did in the link I posted above? I did one overall diff that shows the aggregate of all the changes. You can see from that that those edits were modest improvements. Some people edit that way, and there is nothing wrong with that. --John (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I get it. Tetra quark (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. --John (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

See your email. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jb423

[edit]

Hi. You blocked this editor ages ago (per WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EVADE), and have probably forgotten about it, but I remember him as he kept making bad edits to several Who articles on my watchlist again and again. Anyway, I looked at some of the stuff that wasn't on my watchlist like this, screamed and took a hatchet to it. I sound harsh but putting this sort of prose on Wikipedia really does make the place look like a joke - I reckon I could probably rollback every edit he's done and it would be a net improvement. What options have I got other than just slogging through the prose, or putting up with awful prose? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the edits were a while ago, I fear that these edits will have to be manually removed. --John (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well. In the meantime, I created this as a cathartic exercise.
This user hates The Sun and thinks anyone who treats it as a reliable source for a biography of a living person is stark raving mad.
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is funny. I probably won't display it because I already have enough trouble being knowwn as "the anti-Daily Mail admin, as though there was any other responsible position to take. See Talk:Alexander Litvinenko for details of a recent instance. --John (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Sun is far less a contentious issue, it's notability chiefly rests on being downmarket trash, and even editors who would accept the Daily Mail in limited circumstances (which I'll happily admit I do too, though not very often) would think twice about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But this makes the Mail more of a threat, as it is still possible to find people arguing it is a good source to support saying that a living person rubbed a child's tummy, for example. I haven't seen anybody arguing for the use of the Sun in such a case, so it is less of a threat to our project. --John (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I think you just have to call it as you see it. The Mail seems to be very popular with middle age women and it runs items on fashion, for example, at a greater depth than other papers, and I do wonder if our systematic bias means we only see the gossipy, questionable right-wing side of it. For the example you used above, anything involves intimate contact between two humans (broadly construed), I would want two sources from broadsheets, and ideally an officially endorsed biography for historical events. (IIRC Rolf Harris' jail conviction did not stick until The Guardian and BBC News both ran a story on it). While I'm here, I've been playing around with the search and discovered 37 BLPs cite The Sun and 448 BLPs cite The Mail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be great to have this same conversation in a year, and these numbers were way down? --John (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn AE on QuackGuru

[edit]

Good day John! I just posted and withdrew a notice on AE because I spotted that I made an omission on one part, then realized I was likely in over my head. Given the calls for chopping my head off with a boomerang that would likely ensue if I didn't have every I dotted and T crossed, I thought it would be best if I withdrew it for now. After all, it was about one month ago that I came to your talk page and asked you advice on how to handle QuackGuru. A lot of editors chimed in, debate ensued, threats were made, and QuackGuru even preemptively made battleground-ish allegations against you, saying you were involved. An Arbcom was filed against me and several other editors seeking to have us banned, not for bad behavior, but for not seeing eye to eye with other editors on some issues. Who knows what will come from me posting here now? Believe me when I say I'm reluctant to come here. Things shouldn't be like this. I always try my best to be nice and avoiding conflict, so bloodbaths are never fun for me at all. About a month ago, we left it with you contemplating the best course of action, saying the right answer might come about in the next month or so. You had also asked me if QuackGuru's bad behavior extended beyond the acupuncture article. Interesting enough, lately it has actually elevated on the acupuncture article and elsewhere. This is slightly surprising to me because veteran editors have pointed out that QuackGuru is usually only on good behavior when he knows he's being watched. During the elapsed time, QuackGuru has shamelessly made petty, disruptive edits on ECigarette talk, edit warred there, and has taken things up a notch on Acupuncture by accusing others of ignoring consensus while actually ignoring Shii's RfC consensus statement himself after Shii closed it. It's been nothing but IDHT's1 23 on talk after that. The editor who opened the RfC, by the way, has been driven away. He was a good editor, an admin actually, and had an entirely different perspective about a conflict. Fresh eyes should always be welcomed, but within a perpetual battleground it's such a shame this can't happen. It's funny, I came here a month ago complaining of the very same behavior that this editor pointed out (at the tail bottom of the diff) over 4 years ago! How can an editor be this bad for this long, never changing their behavior, and get away with it? Let me ask you, now that a month has passed, do you see any way out of this situation with this editor and the behavior in this topic area, or do you think the situation is hopeless? LesVegas (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just for the record, I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to review or comment on my AE request. I've withdrawn it and hope to keep it withdrawn. My desire in coming here is solely to reignite discussions from a month ago so that I don't have to pursue things at AE. Other options are surely available. It's ridiculous that I should even have to say any of that, but it seems the drama has already began. LesVegas (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note and for your patience. A couple of weeks ago I posted about my reduced availability on Wikipedia as a family member was suffering a medical condition. Although this has stabilised, it has left me with a lot less time to edit than hitherto. The matter is one of those that I am conscious of having let slip. It appears to be an ongoing problem. It may be that AE will be needed, or even a separate case. There is one thing I was pursuing, and I will take your message as a reminder to continue to investigate. Sorry I have not been as much help recently as I had hoped to be. --John (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked and this is not an area that I can advise in for the next few weeks. I suggest that by early March there will be an improvement and I counsel you to be patient until then. If the situation becomes more urgent, you will have to try AE or AN/I. I am sorry I cannot be more help for the moment. --John (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm very sorry to hear about your family's medical concern. You don't have anything to be sorry for, not in the least, and I'd like to offer my sincerest apologies for not having seen that post of yours. While this problem is and will likely remain protracted on Wikipedia, it's just absolutely silly when compared to real-life matters. I feel terrible I even brought this up to you. It's even less pressing because I've now experienced firsthand how much time and energy matters like this require. By all means, it can wait as long as necessary, and my please accept my warmest wishes for a positive outcome in your family matter! LesVegas (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. I will take this opportunity to remind all who may read this of the importance of real life; however important and exciting Wikipedia is (and I continue to believe that it is both), one's real-life family, friends and colleagues come first. Wikipedia's problems are manifold, but few of them are urgent and there are many people working on the important problems. If nobody else takes responsibility for addressing the problem you raise, I will do my utmost to ensure that it is solved before Easter. Take care, --John (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

[edit]


Ayurveda

[edit]
Sanctions still apply, conversation is over. --John (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If I bring back the page to compliance with NPOV, will your sanctions apply to me, I wouldn't be breaking any of the normal rules, but your rules are unclear to me and should be totally removed. In your current circumstances, for which I extend every sympathy, perhaps you could lift sanctions as they are unenforceable if you cannot be around to interpret them. Nobody appears to be watching the page at the moment or it would have been corrected, but I suppose I'm not surprised that the supporters of this fringe practise aren't putting it right. Actually, perhaps you could sort it out - it wouldn't take long. Anything is better than leaving it. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would "bring[ing] back the page to compliance with NPOV" mean, exactly? --John (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, rather than discuss this here, perhaps you could post your suggestion at Talk:Ayurveda where others could join in? --John (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why can't I just edit the page like I would normally? I have stopped watching the page itself, I am just checking once a week instead, as I have no desire to interact with those currently watching that page. They do not appear to be AGF editors, or it wouldn't need me. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'd rather not have a prolonged discussion with you here about this. I'll leave you with this thought. If you are unable to assume good faith in other editors, why do you think you are the best person to edit the page? In any case, the best way forward is to propose your edits in article talk and see if you can get a consensus there. --John (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume I think I am the best person to edit the page. Stop being obstructive and please do something useful for a change. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned non-free image File:William Welles Bosworth.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:William Welles Bosworth.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --John (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please block user

[edit]

Can you pleas block this user: 145.90.10.93 ? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. --John (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's ready for FAC?

[edit]

Hey there John,

Previously you were kind enough to helpfully copy edit articles that were part of my Quality improvement projects, including: WP:FAs: Fuck (film), Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, and WP:GA: "R U Professional".

Do you think that last one is ready for WP:FAC ?

I wanted to get your thoughts, on what the next step in the Quality improvement process for that article should be.

Thanks for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you are not in a hurry I am happy to take a look in the next week or so. Thank you for asking. --John (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm not in a hurry, unfortunately I'm quite busy in life these days with other commitments, so take your time. Let me know when you've had a chance and thank you for taking a look, — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience User:Cirt. I took a quick look at it. I think it is looking pretty good. I took a further hack at the lead. I think I would like to work on it some more pre-FAC but as far as I can see it is basically ok. --John (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks very much for your help and willingness to work on it some more pre-FAC. Let me know when you're all done with that? — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User QuackGuru and 'Wall of Shame' activities

[edit]

Greetings! I am messaging you because you are familiar with user QuackGuru and his 'Wall of Shame' activities. I've brought couple of incidents to your attention even before[17][18], and apparently he is still keeping up with similar behavior[19].

Technically, WP:HUSH discusses the term "Wall of Shame" to be related to user talk pages. However, user QuackGuru has now merely taken a more public venue by moving from User Talk Pages to Article Talk Pages. Interesting enough, even Kww reprimanded QuackGuru:

QG, drop this line of argument. Consider this an administrative warning. There was a recent RFC. As flawed as the problem statement in that RFC was and as ridiculous as the close was, Middle 8's edits are largely in compliance with it. If you want to find a wording that conforms to the RFC and is a little more forceful than the current statement, feel free to propose it, but bringing up nine-month-old edits in an effort to paint him making those particular edits in bad faith is unreasonable.

Anyway, just wanted to bring this to your attention. QuackGuru has been treated with kid gloves for many times now, and I think he should have understood to change his behaviour already by now. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I agree that some of their behaviour there raises concerns. I see the user seems to have stopped after a formal warning from another admin. Let's hope that sticks or there will have to be more administrative action. --John (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

[edit]

Article

[edit]

Hi John. How are you mucker?? Long time no wiki, eh. Any chance you can check this draft and hook it up for me??--Discolover18 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well thanks, and all the better for seeing another of your fine articles come online. I am going to develop this one a wee bit I think before I let it loose. Give me an hour or so, and I will put it up. I'll ping you when I do. Thank you once again for your work. --John (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent John. Thanks--Discolover18 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, I polished it and added a few refs. Take care of yourself, Discolover18. --John (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well good. Your edits make it better. Thanks John. Am away home now. Take it easy mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting hairs on this article, I think it will get kept though. What's your thoughts??--Discolover18 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be fine. As a listed building I think it is inherently notable. --John (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was the plane crash one that I was talking about. It got kept anyway. Cheers mate.

Peer review process

[edit]

Maybe just come after the people who have so egregiously failed WP? You should start with me, I suppose. Victoria (tk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must not blame yourself, but the idiosyncratic image formatting and image use policy in general, including the map, were faults which a good reviewer should have picked up. We need to go beyond personal feelings and see where we go from here. The problems at the article should be corrected, and there is a need for a shake-up at FAC and (especially) at TFA. --John (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way of saying that I'm not a good reviewer and that I'm being emotional. I'm not an automaton; each of us is a human being sitting in front of a computer screen; each of us has opinions and feelings and all the baggage that comes with being human. None of us is perfect by any means. As it happens I thought the "idiosyncratic" formatting was interesting and different and the content, though extremely disturbing to read, very well presented. I guess I was wrong. Anyway, I've requested a self-block so as to stay away from here for a while. Since you're an admin, maybe you'd like to do that for me? Victoria (tk) 21:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're a great reviewer but nobody's perfect. The review process thrives on attracting a variety of people. It just happens nobody on that review noticed the things that have now been brought up. It will get fixed, and you should try not to worry about it. If you want to stay away for a few days, you can achieve that without getting blocked. Take care, --John (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

[edit]

Hi John. Can you check this draft for us. It is pretty short. It is a requested article. So hopefully when it's up and running somebody can add a bit more to it.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up Discolover. Nice one. Thanks a million for another fine contribution. Are you keeping well? --John (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Morning John. Yeah, I'm keeping all right. Getting by, ye know.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tetra quark

[edit]

Please can you consider extending the block of User:Tetra quark? They replaced the lead image on Jesus with pornography on Commons, in what seems like a revenge attack on en-wiki via its usage. I would hate to see them allowed to do that again in 6 days time. They have been indef-blocked on Commons. --99of9 (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I don't think I can take action based on what they have done on another project. Let me think. --John (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9: No en.wiki admin can take any action based on what he has done on commons or any other Wikipedia project, you may want to contact WMF if you believe that his actions are harmful towards multiple Wikipedia projects.
John you may want to protect Universe. Since TQ's block, about three different accounts[20][21][22] had recently contributed on this article and none of their edits were acceptable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected Universe. Thanks for the heads-up. --John (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: I haven't looked up the exact wording of the blocking rules, but it seems like it should have a special case for the few actions on other projects which can directly affect the (lead image!) content of this project (especially when this action was clearly aimed in revenge against this project). --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I've checked WP:BLOCK, and the key sentence is "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project". This is about the effect, not the source location of the disruption, so IMO admins would be authorised to go ahead with this. I'd argue that it should count as inappropriately placing explicit images on pages. --99of9 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John:@Graeme Bartlett: I came across another questionable WP:3RR rule violation by User:Tetra quark in the article Science communication, done six days before the current one. This was three different reverts in 08 hours 39 minutes, and inside the 24 hour limit. There seems no desire or attempt to seek consensus here, whose reasons are stated as only "unrelated image", then "unrelated", and the uncommented final revert. (None of the current users are involved in the latest dispute are acting in this new one.) While I see no need for further sanctions here, it plainly shows problems understanding reverts by this User. (While saying this might be unfair to someone who cannot reply, it strengthens support for the current actions.)
Also in Age of the universe article, User:Tetra quark says "This has been discussed in the past. It's going to be capitalized, as in many other articles."[23] This is plainly not true, as it is still being discussed on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment and hasn't reached consensus. He already knows this, but doesn't seem to want to contribute input to solve it.
But just one hour before this statement, he did request renewal for WP:AWB registration on the Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Here User:Tetra quark states "Had my registration canceled a while ago and now I'm ready to use it again if necessary" This was declined by User:Graeme Bartlett, who said "...come back when there are a couple of months of noncontroversial editing." This is again an example of WP:GAMING, where it clearly states "Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus."" Under the discussion above, which shows concerns with possible future disruptions, it would seem even more questionable to give future access to WP:AWB.
I've tried to understand User:Tetra quark's actions here, but the recent braking the WP:CIV guidelines and the continued WP:GAMING to gain some advantage makes WP:GF near impossible. I am already interested in cosmology and astronomy articles, and I do think his WikiProject Cosmology WP:COSMOLOGY was a really great idea. However, there seems the singular perception that somehow these are 'his' articles, and his actions are some kind of vanguard against all other editors. Even my own recent edits have backed off on these subjects to avoid open conflict.
I think 99of9 earlier comments (above) on the severe conduct disruptions stem from not from deliberate acts but from not seeing things other than his hardline point of view. I.e. The sheer unbending nature expressed in wanting the capitalisation of the word Universe (and some other common terms), as shown above and the last month, and desiring the means of imposing it through AWB, appears the only main goal.
I fear the possible accusation of WP:HARASSMENT here, but the central issue comes back to my ability of editing cosmology and astronomy articles, which is already traditionally littered with minutia of overcomplicated rules of style. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of the failed AWB application but I had not seen the other spate of reversions. If I had I would have blocked earlier. I had previously asked him to revert his 1000 edits to capitalise "universe" and he had agreed to do so if the proposal failed to gain consensus. In spite of everything it would greatly have been my preference if the user had proved capable of learning to work within our community here, but so far he has not. I personally will hold out one last chance if Tetra quark wants to post an unblock or resume editing after his current block expires in a few days. The next block will be indefinite in the light of the way his behaviour has failed to improve. I may take any such block to AN/I for a block review. I can't see anyone objecting given the history but it is good practice to do so in a case where one admin has applied most of the sanctions. Let us see what happens. --John (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I don't think any block has to be extended just because some more of the same kind of editing is discovered. TQ seems to be very enthusiastic and may be pushing things a bit far, and so asked for AWB again so soon. If TQ proves he can work with other editors after the week, then that will be good. I would not call a second AWB request gaming as we have few rules about this. But going to the brink of 3RR shows he is missing the idea but trying to follow the rule. We could extend the block because of the vandalism, but it was not doubt done in a fit of anger which may be over in a week. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --John (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please ensure you watch like hawks when the week is up. --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arianewiki1: I agree that the action stems from being upset and angry about some kind of issue on en-wiki, but it was also a "deliberate act". It takes quite some deliberation to go to another project to locate the lead image of a highly significant religious figure, locate some hardcore pornography, and go through the overwriting upload steps to replace one with the other. This was no accident. --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My only wish was to get all the facts as I saw it before seeing any further action.
TQ has been given three earlier 3RR chances here, so arguments about pushing 3RR to the brink would seemingly be deliberately provocative. I've counted more than a dozen times (or more) advising of the real consequences of violating 3RR, but never in response even a hint of contrition or remorse - which (excepting this last instance) change immediately when actually sanctioned are evoked. TQ now states "... but I'm not here to discuss the edits themselves and the reason I got blocked.", being not even prepared to find out what is wrong or correct it, but is quite happy to respond bluntly ignoring WP:CIV. I'm pretty thick skinned, but responses like the last one to me were both insulting and unnecessary. Upset or angry is one thing, but behaviour like that unacceptable, anywhere. It too, was a deliberate act. (No wonder only 13% of Wikipedians are female! [24]).
If TQ comes back, I hope he does act more cordial and contrite. We'll see. (As for the change to the pornographic image, I cannot comment, as I have not seen it. ) As for John's recent kind guide to User:Tetra quark is more than fair. Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not worried about contrite but if he comes back I need to see more cordiality, yes, and also more collegiality. This is a group project, and we do not need people who can only do things their own way. WP:EDITWAR is absolutely essential and everybody working here needs to understand this. --John (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

[edit]

The Tabloid Terminator : 12 February 2015

[edit]

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote

[edit]

Hi John. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (99th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apatosaurus CE

[edit]

Hello, would you be able to copyedit Apatosaurus. Its requested here. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a wee hack at it. It is a pretty good article. --John (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hello, Your Honorable John. (My name has also "John" in it.)

I am here to pledge to you for User:Tetra quark. He is my close friend. He is now doing worse. He removed some warnings posted on him. He became so mean. I don't know what happened to him. But what he is doing now is very damaging.

I come here to appeal to you. Please give him another chance. I know there is still some good remaining in him. Please don't block him indefinitely. He is a good person. I am so ashamed of myself, to you, and to all his victims, but I will talk to him. Please, Your Honorable, he is the leader of WP:COSMOS. Losing him would be tragic. Anyway, I will respect your decision, Your Honorable. Allow me to post a message to him. If he deletes it or responds very badly, then I will hand him over to you.

Your Honorable, you may post a message on my talk page if you have any comments for me. — Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will endeavour to treat your friend fairly and humanely. At this point the ball is very firmly in TQ's court. --John (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

[edit]

Hello again

[edit]

Hi John been away for a while just dropped back in and see some things don't change to much, don't know if you would be interested in having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kerr (loyalist), looks like socks are in play also I have notified the editor who brought the AfD about 1RR sanctions on Robin Jackson which have been breached, maybe you're like me and haven't really got the head for the whole Arbcom drama anymore. Mo ainm~Talk

Hi, nice to see you back. Interesting. I will think about what to do there. --John (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a sock report here, editor is admitting to having a Meatpuppet. Mo ainm~Talk 02:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barry Town People

[edit]

Hi John. I noticed that this guy you warned is back at it, reverting edits and accusing Giraffedata of vandalism. I was tempted to re-warn, block and/or revert, but I thought it would be better to let you handle it as you see fit since you've already engaged him. 28bytes (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courtesy. I have blocked 24 hours for this first offence. There is some interesting discussion at Giraffedata's talk if you haven't seen it. --John (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. Yes, Giraffedata's talk page has been quite the hub of activity since that medium.com piece came out. 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Of Human Feelings FAC

[edit]

Hi John, hope you're well. I wonder if you'd have time soon to cast your eye over this FAC. It's had many goes and has failed in the past in part over close paraphrasing issues. My impression is that this concern has been addressed but the prose could now use some polish. In the lead alone for instance I noted a very long sentence in the first para and "first introduced" in the second, which for me did not bode too well... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

[edit]

Hi John,

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have commented. --John (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015

[edit]
How to pick up more women...
Hello! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women... -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. Examples include the Edit-a-thon blitz during WikiWomen's History Month and the "new articles" work underway by WikiProject Women Writers. The Wikimania talk proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft (2)

[edit]

Morning John. Can you check this draft for me if you can. Cheers mate--Discolover18 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this tomorrow. Sorry, it's been a long day. --John (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, cool. Take it easy mate--Discolover18 (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw am I autoconfirmed?--Discolover18 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. So yes. --John (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Discolover18. --John (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely getting the hang of this a bit better now. Cheers mate--Discolover18 (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

[edit]

Quick question on a suspicious BLP

[edit]

Can you just quickly gloss over Draft:Helen Wood (Big Brother Contestant) and give me a second opinion on whether it meets CSD criteria G10 as an "attack page". It is an attempt to document somebody's life, but uses stereotypical tabloid trash sources, so I think we can WP:IAR and delete it anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article as it stands is a BLP violation. --John (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sent it to MfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

[edit]

Hi,

I just placed this on Rationaloberver's talk, but was reverted.[27]. It's a good idea I think, because if she continues to edit articles frequented by Victoriaearle or other editors she's tangled with, trouble is much more likely. EChastain (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I want to place it on record that I have no problem with most of RO's edits there, though I cannot speak for User:Victoriaearle. I have no ongoing grudge or dispute with User:Rationalobserver. Indeed I intend to help her with a FAC. --John (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other editors have become upset. Victoriaearle has ({{db-user}}) on her page, for example. And Ceoil got quite upset and was taken to ANI over the Source integrity issues brought up on Talk:Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck). And of course, the Donner Party stuff. I still think my suggestion is a good one, but whatever. I just hate to see this happening. EChastain (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear. Conflict is always regrettable. We are here to build an encyclopedia. What a shame. --John (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadi John

[edit]

Re this edit Why, according to John, is the Evening Standard a poor source? I'd be interested to know. It makes a change from the Daily Mail.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me or past me? Do you know the paper in question? Are you familiar with WP:BLPSOURCES? Easy stuff really. --John (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's this? Some kind of anti-Standard crusade, John? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Evening Standard is not on my list of problematic sources, and it is widely used on Wikipedia. WP:BLPSOURCES is intended primarily to prevent addition of material that could be controversial or potentially libellous. It would be assuming bad faith to imply that the Evening Standard fabricated the Ringo Starr quote. It would be a pity to say "ZOMG, this is in the Evening Standard, it must be removed."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly sure it is a weak source for anything controversial. This supposed quote relates to not one but two living people. I would hold out for better sourcing or removal I think. --John (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalking edit conflict) The salient part of WP:BLPSOURCES, and the reason I (and I suspect John too) favour removing citations to questionable newspapers (particularly The Sun and the Daily Star, though mercifully I do not believe a single BLP currently cites the Sunday Sport) is "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." And sure enough, a search for Ringo's quotation brings up hits in the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail, but also the International Business Times. Therefore Starr's "bullshit" quotation does satisfy WP:BLPSOURCES and should be left in, using the IBT source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good result Ritchie. Well played. --John (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am not a fan of the International Business Times, because it consists largely of churnalism culled from other sources. This the real problem nowadays, because the overseas media often repeats things from the British tabloid press, which does not enhance its verifiability. This was a real problem at Rolf Harris.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IBT can be a bit flimsy, can't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Even so, I don't think that part of the article is particularly contentious - is Starr likely to decry a group of terrorists who have reappropriated his old band's name for their own purposes, and express it using blunt language? Yes, I think so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Keep me posted

[edit]

Keep me posted on when you think R U Professional is ready.

Thanks again so much for your help,

— Cirt (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. --John (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommunicative editing by IP 91.122.2.96

[edit]

John, can you possibly warn @91.122.2.96 about his/her uncommunicative edits on wikipages Action (physics), Planck constant, and Zero-energy universe? @Hroðulf has also tried to work constructively with the situation. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them for their combative behaviour. --John (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

[edit]

Joy Division

[edit]

This showed amazing resilience [28] for such young guys. I'd like to emphasise N.O. more in the lead; for me JD is more about Summer and Mr Hannet than Curtis. Though I started life as a bass player, cough. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, I was a bass player at one time too. I liked both bands very much, but I think I (slightly) went off NO latterly. JD and Curtis benefited from the Marilyn Munro effect; by dying young and beautiful they became heroes for ever. --John (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if I think about it, the scattering of songs that I am really fond of over the whole period (1977-present) are pretty even (Isolation/Transmission/No Love Lost as my 3 preferred JD tracks - Ceremony/Age of Consent/Everythings Gone Green/True Faith/Jetstream fave NO tracks). Funny thing is of my 2 older kids, my son prefers JD and daughter NO. Agree about Munro effect - even happened to INXS, who by the time of MH's passing were descending into mediocrity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Saw You Act More in Sorrow than in Vexation

[edit]
Patience in the Midst of a Barrage from an EditWarrior
I stumbled upon your handling of a certain T— — for the past few months and skimmed a very little bit. Your patience, Sir John, Sir, was epic.

I'd consider giving you my sliver of the Erasmus Prize, but it's too small for the human eye to see and I've lost it already. Oh, well. At least it's somewhere here at home, and I get to share the honor with wonderful people like you, who I'm sure at least get a visible strip of the adornments! Geekdiva (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your comments very much. --John (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddfellows

[edit]
Article semi'ed, nothing more to discuss here. --John (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings John! I was wondering if you had time to have a quick look at the article Oddfellows? There seems to be some problems with a few IP editors: 2.27.78.251, 2.27.78.13, and 163.167.125.215. I'll try to explain the problem with a few bullet points real simple and short:

  1. The first IP editor added a section about Manchester Unity Credit Union[29] on 25th February, but the text couldn't be verified by the source.
  2. I rewrote the first paragraph on 8th March[30] in such a way that it would correspond what the source actually said.
  3. My edit got reverted, however, by the second IP with an Edit Summary "rv."; the source still couldn't verify the text.
  4. I reverted this unexplained edit back to the previous version[31], but it got reverted by the same IP editor again, this time with an Edit Summary of "inelegant prose".
  5. I messaged the IP editor's Talk Page[32], and explained him that the source does not support the text, and asked him to address what's exactly wrong with my edit instead of mere blind objection.
  6. While waiting for the user to reply, I tagged the paragraph with {{fv}}[33], and the paragraph right below with {{citation needed}}[34]. This got reverted by the third IP editor[35] per "rv. not controversial statement". As far as I am concerned, one has right to tag unsourced pieces of text per WP:VERIFIABILITY. I believe the same applies to pieces of text that have failed verification.
  7. I restored the tags with an Edit Summary: "The first paragraph is not supported by the source, and the second paragraph clearly lacks of a souce | I've asked an admin to take a look at this"[36], and shortly after the same IP editor removed the tags again, this time by saying that "rv. for reasons already given"

It seems there have suddenly popped up three different IP editors, all editing over the same content, and all of which seem to share the same interest towards credit unions according to their user contributions. Do you think they might be socks? I hope you have time to take a look, thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I set out the sequence of events here. You will see that Jayaguru-Shishya is making a habit of bad faith accusations. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yepp, when I asked for the page protection, I mistakenly reported only one IP instead of two. After that, a third IP has already appeared. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected one week and removed the dubious material per WP:V. I agree something looked dodgy about those edits. --John (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what looked dodgy exactly? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (same user as 163.167.125.215).[reply]
Sourcing, promotion, and the impression that the three IPs are tag teaming. --John (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IPAs, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I wish! --John (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited from two computers (one with dynamic IP address) at different times of the day. I shouldn't have to point out that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No indeed. Thanks for admitting you were editing from different IPs, that helps. Your next move would be to go to article talk and give reasons for the changes you wish to make. --John (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What difference should it make what my IP address is? I have not acted improperly or dishonestly. Jayaguru-Shishya was bold, I reverted. What's the next move? Jayaguru-Shishya thought it was to begin an edit war and accuse me of a "high level of IP vandalism" and "making the same controversial edits over and over again" at WP:RFP. When that failed, (s)he accused me of sock puppetry. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we've cleared that up. Your next move would be to go to article talk and give reasons for the changes you wish to make. --John (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see I'm talking to a brick wall. Thanks for the fair hearing. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.78.13 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TPSs -

[edit]

What should I push to FA status next?

Suggestions welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

[edit]

Blue

[edit]

Thank you, out of the blue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen dank, Gerda. --John (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian wine

[edit]

Hello John, can you please tell me what is wrong with my information and sources which I have provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyCole01 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UNDUE. --John (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add the following under the history of wine:
Archaeological evidence has established the oldest-known wine originates from Armenia. [1] [2] Armenian Wine is at least, 6000 years old; 2000 years older than the Egyptian Pyramids. [3][4] Ancient Armenia had special, ancient, rituals associated with wine drinking which was connected to fertility of young women. [5]

Vitis Vinifera, is the oldest of wine grape species which originated in Armenia in the Areni-1 Cave Complex. Most of the wine found around the world, today; derives comes from the Vitis Vinifera grape from Ancient Armenia. [6] BobbyCole01 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably post at Talk:Wine then. --John (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Hi, John! I'd like to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Irataba/archive1. The article has been significantly improved since the failed FAC, and I'd appreciate your input at the peer review prior to re-noming the article for FA. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I have edited the article and will comment at PR. --John (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was very generous of you. Thanks for those wonderful contributions. I look forward to your comments. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did a great job tightening the prose. I never realized how wordy some of it was! Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, my pleasure. Thank you for asking me. --John (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun

[edit]

I apologize if I sounded abrupt; however it is just 2 pieces of (questionable), incidental nonsense not worthy of inclusion. "Copies of the Sun were soon burnt" and "claimed to have seen copies of the Sun thrown overboard" are hardly noteworthy of inclusion. Seems bias seeps through. Don't worry I won't try and make any edits on there anymore. Regards.--82.3.162.160 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about your tone. If you want to remove well-sourced material that has been in the article for a while, you should raise your concerns in talk rather than just removing it. --John (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. With all due respect, I refer you to the comments I made on the said talk page one whole month before I made those edits in which I cited clear examples (including the two in question among others) which are trivial and arguably superfluous for this article. It is conspicuous that nobody chose to answer my edits before I took the silence to be either guilt or acquiescence.--82.3.162.160 (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of Human Feelings FAC

[edit]

Hi John, are you able to get back to this one and give your final verdict? No pressure of course but I'm looking for a decider one way or t'other given its age... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. Sorry to have forgotten about this. --John (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blades

[edit]

Is deliberately breaking your sanctions at Ayurveda. please stop him. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Bladesmulti's talk page section. I had checked the edits, it is not violation, another uninvolved editor Littleolive oil did the same. This edit summary: WTF is unwelcome to say the least. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Is breaking your sanctions at Ayurveda, please advise her to self-revert. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an addition of content per the RfC consensus. Not sure why this wasn't expected and understood and why Roxy seems concerned by an edit that restores content per consensus but not by edits that clearly are nor supported by the RfC. I have suggested Roxy open a new discussion if he has information/sources that could change the prior consensus.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
[37] this is the violation now. Alexbrn,[38] Ronz[39] and Bullrangifer[40] had achieved no agreement on talk page, nor they had explained their contributions so well. I believe that page should be protected and reverted to a non-edit conflicted version, for a week or more. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As regards sanctions, I considered the possibility that some of these editors may have innocently wandered into this area without knowing there were restrictions in place. Alexbrn indicated in the talk page highlighted above that he knew this was a controversial area. Bladesmulti knew about the restrictions. BullRangifer made an uncivil summary and a false allegation of vandalism, but I see no evidence they have previously been warned. Littleolive oil joined the edit war, and had been warned here about the restrictions. Ronz has 63 edits at Talk:Ayurveda, so they really should know better, but I will warn them on this occasion, with a definite block for any further breaches. All these users would have received an edit notice warning them of active restrictions at the page they were editing and it would have been smart to think twice before joining an edit war.

  • Alexbrn has not been previously blocked so gets a 24 hour block.
  • Bladesmulti has three previous blocks, two of which were commuted. He gets one week.
  • Littleolive oil has not been previously blocked so gets a 24 hour block.
  • Bullrangifer and Ronz are given final warnings as noted above.

User:Roxy the dog alerted me to this situation at 16.04 today and I did not see the messages that ensued until about 19.00 when I logged on. I would ask that further concerns are brought to my attention more promptly in future. I am deeply sorry that blocks have been necessary on this occasion but I hope they will be effective in preventing further disruption in the future. --John (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I can't keep track of these special sanctions that thwart regular improvement of articles. I think the policies are clear and we simply have an attempt to block agreement rather than follow policy. The sanctions are impeding our work. What do you suggest as an alternative? --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The whole wider area has been problematic and I was asked to intervene on this one particular article. Edit-warring is not the way forward here. --John (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the edit-warring. Suggestions on how to stop the obstruction of our policies and wider consensus? The current sanctions are a clumsy tool at best. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked Alexbrn as they have said they were unaware of the restriction and will adhere to it in future. I also updated the editnotices. I remain open to suggestions about how policing this area can be improved. --John (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John Why aren't these block decisions taken on WP:AE noticeboard? Where can I clearly read the sanctions, this page was too big and I might have missed it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, Also it feels from reading that page that these blocks should have been logged here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, what am I missing? --AmritasyaPutraT 01:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see that you are still active in this matter. Upon seeing the incident, I hope you would agree that Alexbrn and Bladesmulti shouldn't have been blocked. One editor had inserted the information, even after knowing that it was widely rejected, and the other editor removed it after nearly a day and now discussion had to take place. Blades attempted to discuss and Alexbrn hadn't restored his edit. Now whoever escalated the matter that had to be blocked. Did Blades and Alexbrn edit warred or made any attempt to restore their preferred versions? They didn't. Bullrangifer was aware of these sanctions, he had also brought the Rfc consensus to be reviewed on Administrator noticeboard. Once again Ronz has escalated an edit war. Back in 2014, Ronz had made 2 reverts.[41][42] Just like then, he has now blocked any attempt to remove the information in question by taking the advantage of 0-revert rule that itself never allowed him to restore a controversial edit. Ronz has not even provided a reliable source. నిజానికి (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the source provided is reliable. I was unaware that you think (thought?) otherwise, let alone anyone else.
  • I'm blocking nothing, but you seem to saying you will edit war here. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No idea about Bullrangifer, though he had expressed his ideas about the Rfc closure on AN and I was the first editor to comment. Ronz you are claiming an unreliable source to be reliable and this is one of the few times when you have tried to take benefit of 0-revert rule after seeing multiple editors in violation of 0-revert rule. నిజానికి (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to claim that Oxford University Press is an unreliable source (after the fact as far as I'm aware). You'll get little if any agreement from anyone and strong consensus in opposition if you make any attempt at getting agreement. Thanks though for demonstrating my point that editors are simply trying to obstruct rather than improve the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]
Hello, John. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 22:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! --John (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru

[edit]

QuackGuru just posted this complaint about your actions on another administrator's talk page. Just to let you know. -A1candidate 23:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. --John (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

new essay

[edit]

The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see you were at arbcom. It's a good essay, thank you for sharing. --John (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda restriction violation

[edit]
This discussion is now closed. I have dealt with the initial complaint and answered the question. I am open to any criticism of my actions that is evidenced, but vague hand-waving is a waste of your time and mine. --John (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per your restrictions, it's apparent that there has been another violation: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ayurveda&diff=652796436&oldid=652191531 .—Kww(talk) 23:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've advised him to self-revert immediately. -A1candidate 23:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He made the revert after he threatened to do so [43], which I mentioned in the discussion above. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That edit needs to be reverted. He knows that it's controversial, and yet he did it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for this(highly major) edition, it was originally added by Alexbrn and I have also wrote above that Ronz had re-stored it without consensus. On talk, Kww and Ronz are only repeating what they had already said during the last Rfc.(WP:GREENCHEESE) My edit was not a revert of any previous edit.
Now that has been clarified, I have again stated my position on this sort of edition that it would require a few reliable sources, not just one unreliable source. Any further edition in this regard or any other major edition should gain consensus. నిజానికి (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the restriction is not a 0RR restriction, it's making controversial changes without gaining consensus. It's a fairly unworkable restriction, but that is the one that is in place. Note that the fact that your position has no merit whatsoever doesn't require me to come up with new and novel arguments each time you are wrong. You are rejecting a reliable source as unreliable without any justification for your position, and you did so with full knowledge that your rejection was controversial. If you want to claim that a source published by the Oxford Press is unreliable, you can feel free to take that rejection to WP:RS/N. After everyone stops laughing, we can proceed with discussion at Talk:Ayurveda, but you should undo your edit until then. Or, alternatively, John can block you, hopefully for a substantial period of time, and the rest of us can have a productive discussion.—Kww(talk) 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a consensus for inclusion of that edit. Consensus does not mean no opposition at all, but there are enough editors who have pointed out the fallacious arguments backing these dumb deletions. A block is in order and the content should be restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When people are having trouble deciding what consensus exists for an edit, there are many good ways to sort it out. Edit-warring is not one of them. Repeating your arguments here isn't either. You need to look at one of the other options as laid out in WP:DR. --John (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John - the poor watchers on the Ayurveda page obviously need your guidance as to the liklihood of incurring your wrath if they restore the content that Indeed deleted and you sanctioned him for. Please help them. I think you should examine the revert A1c made too, and bearing in mind your policy of escalating blocks, deal with this second sanction violation in less than a week a little more severely, so he will take you seriously. thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)(edited -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think my edit was controversial. Post on the talk page first if you disagree, and I shall consider a self-revert. -A1candidate 10:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously your edit was sanction breaking, so thanks for self reverting. May I remind you not to actually edit the page at all, unless there is consensus for your improvement - per John's sanctions. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again John. I have highlighted a question I asked yesterday but you didn't answer. I suspect you missed it. Could you take a look and respond. Either way obviously, but they do need help. Thanks very much. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roxy the dog. I noticed your question yesterday but did not have anything to add to my previous statements here and in article talk. The restrictions are extremely clearly laid out, both in an editnotice and on article talk. If anybody feels they are unable to understand what they mean, it might be best for them to avoid the area completely. I am not sure what you mean by "wrath"; this doesn't come into it as what is happening is just a run-of-the-mill content dispute wherein some editors seem to need help to follow normal editing processes of not edit-warring and not insulting each other. What is it you think people don't understand? --John (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't understand your sanctions of course. You sanctioned Indeed for deleting text without agreement on the Talk page, but you failed to restore/correct the edit Watchers do not know if they can return the page to good without incurring your wrath. Wrath means anger or annoyance by the way, and that sentence infers that you use your mop like a cudgel, (but you are only pretending not to understand what I mean.) best -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I understand perfectly well what you are trying to say, I just do not agree with it, which is a different thing. I am not in the least bit angry or annoyed by any of the behaviour I have had to sanction there, though I confess to being slightly disappointed occasionally. I think the restrictions are perfectly clear, and will be perfectly happy to answer any specific questions about them. To avoid sanction, it is merely necessary to follow the restrictions carefully. If you are in doubt about whether something breaks one of the restrictions, you should probably not do it. I hope that helps. --John (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find your unhelpful attitude in this case frustrating, but not unexpected. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to explain the parts that you don't understand to you, John, but it is obvious that you still fail to understand. What do you view as the process for getting your editing restrictions overridden? Which of the various boards and discussion areas do you view as having that authority? I'd hate to spend the effort to get it done and then find out that you didn't believe you were required to acknowledge the result.—Kww(talk) 11:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not as simple as abide by the RfC outcome or challenge it with the closing admin(not John)? --AmritasyaPutraT 12:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion of the editing restrictions that John has put in place, not the RFC.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what all the fuss is about. What I find objectional on any talkpage is the veering away from dealing with content which too often means personal cmts and personal attacks. All this restriction is, is a formal laying out of what should happen on articles anyway. Don't edit war, don't attack each other and be respectful, discuss and get agreement for inclusion of content hat may be contentious. The playing field should be level for all editors. Greater numbers should not control content. These restrictions ensure the rules which govern WP behaviour while editing are followed. If editors can't decide on something get outside input.We can be too attached to content. Right now the pseudoscience label is an issue.Does anyone here think readers care at all whether that label is attached. I doubt it. What they want is information. I suspect the label or lack of means more to editors than it will to the readers.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, Littleolive oil, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a level playing field. For alternative medicine and pseudoscience related topics, editors that are promoting alternative medicine and pseudoscience are supposed to be at a distinct disadvantage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective and at least I can see where you're coming form . The truth is Kww promotion of any position is not acceptable whatever that maybe. WP is a level playing field -NPOV.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
No Olive, you are wrong again. We are supposed to promote the mainstream view, something that Johns restrictions make difficult when he blocks solid mainstream editors for doing something that is quite normal in the rest of wikipedia where John isn't 'taking an interest'. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy. I haven't been wrong at all. I am stating an opinion as are you. John blocked across the board; suggesting he only blocked those supporting one position isn't true actually. And frankly I was blocked for making one edit and the suggestion that only those who supported one position were hurt and everyone else deserved the block is not pleasant. We all have feelings. No one is disputing the usefulness of mainstream sources here. There are no mainstream editors there are only mainstream sources. And those sources should be scrutinized by all editors per content added. I don't enjoy being cast on one side of a dispute or another. That said I would endure the block to see order brought to any page, I have been harassed and attacked on and off WP for too long to enjoy it. If we want all editors interested to edit our pages we need order. And its a bit like when I teach. I tell my students you can be on time and police yourselves or I will police time for you. As a group we didn't do well policing ourselves on this article. I do understand its aggravating to endure boundaries.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid Littleolive oil has it right. Hateful though it is to some, the restrictions are there for a purpose. It is to enable normal editing to take place. If it was possible for the regular editors at this page to police themselves, it would be preferable all round. I'm afraid until then they must remain. Don't revert, discuss major edits to a controversial page before you make them, and don't call other people names. If these conditions are not to your liking, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you, or at least perhaps there are other areas where your talents may be better deployed. --John (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, I asked a specific question: what forum, discussion board, or body would you respect in terms of a consensus overturning your editing restrictions? And no, Littleoliveoil does not have it right: there's a reason that our pseudoscience decision specifically stated that our articles about pseudoscientific topics would reflect a scientific POV about topics. Editors that argue against a scientific POV should not be able to derail a consensus, nor should they be able to ask for a "level playing field".—Kww(talk) 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kww, you did ask a specific question. I confess to being a little baffled about why you (as an experienced admin) would require my advice about how Wikipedia works. If you are honestly looking for advice on how we can engineer things so that saying "the promotion of quackery is the hallmark of an editor that doesn't intend to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" on the talk page of a controversial article would be ok, then I am not able to advise you. The "level playing field" language is not mine so I will not defend it. Perhaps reviving the discussion on adopting WP:SPOV, which I believe previously failed to attain consensus, would be your best move? In the meantime we will have to make do with WP:NPOV and WP:NPA which continue to apply across the project, and all the more so on a controversial article which is under restrictions. --John (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me, John. I believe that the editing restrictions that you have placed are unworkable and that they must be removed. I believe that you, personally, are unsuitable for a maintaining any discretionary sanctions over any article related to alternative medicine or pseudoscience. Many people have expressed that same opinion, and it is obvious that you have no intention of stepping away. So, I'm asking where I would go to get a consensus that you, personally, are unsuitable for this role that you would respect, short of taking you to Arbcom. This needs to be settled, and I'm looking for the way to do it with the minimum of drama and fuss.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, you are doing the right thing by raising it with me here in the first instance. Let's initially hear why you think I am personally ... unsuitable for a maintaining any discretionary sanctions over any article related to alternative medicine or pseudoscience. You'll understand that I am not immediately convinced by an unevidenced assertion about myself, coming from someone I have had to warn over an unsatisfactory edit. Bring your evidence here and if I am convinced by it, I will certainly stand down from protecting the peace in this particular article. --John (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That actually wasn't the question I asked. I believe that you are personally unsuitable because you have shown a pattern of shielding pseudoscience and alternative medicine advocates. We've discussed this for months (I have no idea why you would call this a "first instance"), and you've exhibited this behaviour on your talk page, on acupuncture, and on ayurveda. I believe it because faced with arbitration decisions specifically indicating that the neutral point of view related to scientific topics should only balance scientific perspectives (see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science ), you systematically fail to recognize that the editors you shield are attempting to subvert that basic principle.
It's that latter point is the real problem. These topics are not, and never have been, simple disagreements: they represent a systematic and continuous attempt to subvert the project. Your warning about my edit was laughable, and a clear indication that you don't comprehend the actual issues underlying these articles. All that is kind of beside the point, however. I am fairly confident from earlier discussions that you are under the misapprehension that you are helping the project and that your behaviour is somehow mandated by NPOV. Given that, I don't see any reason to believe that you would suddenly see the light. So I repeat my question: what forum, discussion board, or body would you respect in terms of a consensus overturning your editing restrictions? Despite the depth of my disagreement with you, I assume that you are a reasonable man, and would listen to someone. at least in terms that you need to disengage from this area. So, who's that someone? Would a discussion at WP:AN suffice? Or does it have to be something specific to the arena of discretionary sanctions before you will listen? Or does it have to be Arbcom itself?—Kww(talk) 22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. See, I'm still not really seeing evidence for you have shown a pattern of shielding pseudoscience and alternative medicine advocates either. A strong claim like that needs strong evidence. Is there any? --John (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please answer my direct question? What forum, discussion board, or body would you respect in terms of a consensus overturning your editing restrictions and disengaging you from this topic area? Answer that, and then explain to me what you need further evidence for. That editors you shield are pseudoscience and alternative medicine proponents? Or do you need more explanation of how acting as a "go to" admin for them and setting up editing restrictions designed to make it easier for them to prevail shields them?—Kww(talk) 22:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Kww, but I think we are talking past each other here. Provide some evidence first, here at my talk page, for your complaint. If you can't do that, what's the point of asking about enforcement? --John (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that convincing you of the issue is irrelevant. We've discussed this at length over the last six months, as most such issues have arisen. You are well aware that a large flock of pseudoscience and alt-med proponents flock to your talk page. Your behaviour during this current discussion, where you have refused to answer a simple and direct question that I have asked many times, is adequate evidence of the problem. I'm not asking you to agree that you are unfit, or that you agree that I have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that you are unfit. I'm asking where I need to gain consensus that you are unfit for you to respect that consensus. Do you view it as being something that only Arbcom could decide? Or would you respect a consensus at WP:AN? Neither of those questions requires any level of evidence from me for you to answer.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're asking where you could go, with no evidence, to have my admin actions rescinded? The answer is, nowhere. I really suggest we leave it at that now, Kww. --John (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you answer the question I asked and stop stonewalling. Yes, I will take the time to sort, analyze, and collate the evidence before I take it to whatever board you would accept jurisdiction from. After six months of discussing it with you, it's clear to me that you do not understand the negative impact of your behaviour, nor do you actually have any intent of discussing it (your unwillingness to answer a direct question certainly doesn't provide me with any reason to believe that my assessment is incorrect, by the way). That isn't relevant to the question I asked: who do you believe has jurisdiction over you in this area? Is WP:AN sufficient, or do I have to prepare an Arbcom case before you would accept the results? Simple question, simple answer, no evidential discovery phase required.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

Roxy the Dog

[edit]

Roxy the Dog has been harassing other editors, calling them "advocates of acupuncture" [44], and "advocates of Acu and other ALT-MED proponents" [45], and declaring that a particular editor has a COI despite that editor stating he does not have any [46]. Could you please look into this? -A1candidate 10:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole subject area seems to be a real mess just now. Out of your three diffs, I find the third one the most worrying. If admin-like tasks like this need to be done, it is better they are done by people who are not invested in the dispute. User:Roxy the dog does not seem to fit this description. I might consider blocking if this was to become a pattern. For now, I will leave things alone as it seems to have settled down. --John (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

[edit]

Please, explain it to me why have you, as an editor, removed sourced content from article, and replaced it with unsourced? I would love to know. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit summary and my comments in talk explain this pretty well. I hope you aren't logging out to make edits, are you? --John (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions at Ayurveda

[edit]

This edit reapplies the edit for which 4 blocks have been issued so far and the discussion has not concluded on talk page. I have messaged him. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely consensus for this edit according to the talk page discussion. See WP:BEFOREBLOCK. An admin cannot block an editor without prior warning of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Simonm223 knows, he ought to self-revert and first participate in talk page discussion where he has no involvement. He is exhibiting ididnthearthat in the new article talk page section he opened claiming, along with you, that sanction itself is unjustified. That isn't collaboration on content or a way forward. --AmritasyaPutraT 03:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the log, the 0RR restrictions was lifted last year on 19 November 2014. There was no consensus to continue with the restrictions that are incompatible with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda. The edit was non-controversial and neutrally written. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is controversial. There have been 4 blocks for it and the discussion is still going-on, where no new evidence other than what was given in earlier RfC has been repeated. --AmritasyaPutraT 04:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown in what way it is controversial. Numerous reliable sources can verify similar wording. See Talk:Ayurveda#cite_ref-Sujatha2011_37-0. QuackGuru (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 has been told about the sanctions and about editing the page by an admin. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have read your comment John and you are right about the main and only thing in discussion concerns the mention of pseudoscience. I had opened the last Rfc about the pseudoscience tag, and it has been about only 3 months that it was closed with oppose. Should we try another request for comment and for half of a month cause it is mostly the repetition of what we had already discussed. VandVictory (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irataba

[edit]

Thankyou for your input at the peer review. Irataba is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin request

[edit]

Hello again John ! If possible, could You have a 100% neutral, objective look at this article Västerås Flight museum. Do You see any reasons to delete it ? Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is unhealthily dependent on primary sources. Are there no better ones? --John (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John! There are some stuff at YouTube. But I presume, You want magazin stuff or an newspaper article. Or possibly another webbsource ? But that can well turn up, sooner rather than later hopefully. I will begin with the webb. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some [if single souce] crap, added as inline refs. But for instance a YouTube video cannot hurt , can it? Is it unsuitable, is it just to remove it. But more importaintly, I managed to find a secondary source of quality, which briefly, but still, tells us about the foundation in 1997. Which indeed was lacking. It's prehistory was a Swedish Airforce base at the airport. The source is KSAK, which stands for (translated) Royal Swedish Aeroclub. Sorry for Your time again Boeing720 (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Worthless tabloid"

[edit]

Yes, I know. Lets all give Lloyd Embley a right good chip-shop kicking. But the facts are undisputed, and he did actually publish two of the finest pictures of Maria Radner and Oleg Bryjak one could have hoped to find in this whole frenzied press coverage. So - gutter tabloid journalism? - no; sensitive evaluation of worldwide artistic loss? - I'd say yes. A surprise perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it might seem, I agree that the tabloids are not all bad. But there is no need to carry a bad ref for something when a good ref is available. --John (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The images of those two amazing singers, in the "good ref", aren't really that inspiring, are they? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the pictures? Meh. I do not believe we are here to carry links to inspiring pictures of dead opera singers. --John (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discrete paragraph by operamrhein.de is, of course, quite appropriate. But the Mirror's coverage is not only perfectly well-balanced and factual, in my opinion, but also tells us that Radner's husband and baby were killed in the crash. Its large gallery of images presents a very immediate and compelling story, without any tabloid type sensationalist commentary. The images speak for themsleves. I've now added the The Independent report here as a second source to that paragraph, as it does at least mention Radner's husband and baby. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. --John (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost, 1 April 2015

[edit]

Instrument database

[edit]

Hi John, it tooked me a lot of effort to compile a list of FIB instruments that are on the market. I placed a link to that database here but noticed that you undo it. The provided link leeds to a free scientific instrument database, without monetary interest. I`m going to publish it again. Please contact me to explain why you undo it. Thanks a lot, Thomas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas M Bernhard (talk • contribs) 13:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas M Bernhard (talk • contribs)

Note on activity

[edit]

I will be on holiday for the next week. It is likely I will try to log on to check messages when I can, but it is less likely I will be able to do anything else much. If urgent admin action is required, there are another 1000 admins who may be able to help. See you on or around the 16th. --John (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am back now. --John (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

[edit]

Lack of sources

[edit]

Hello John, hope I'm not disturbing. The Charles XII of Sweden article, especially second headline "Great Northern War" and the 2.1 part, "Early campaigns" totally lackes inline references, I would atleast like to put a "warning / improvement request" of that part, if that's possible for non-admins ? Thing is, I can't find such "general improvement" text or their rules. So If possible, could You please give me a link to where such information is available. Boeing720 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to help you after next Thursday. if you need help faster than that, you'll need to ask someone else. --John (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry. I have searched in the help pages and will continue to do so, but if possible "later is always better than never". But article part 2.1 makes many statement of which all lackes inline citations, as of Yesterday. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found the synthax needed, in an other article. If such matters only are for administrators to use, then I have done wrong and appologize. But especially part 2.1 has ZERO inline refs to sources, but even gives excact numbers ("43 ships"). Also other parts of the article is very poorly sourcered. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent COI

[edit]

I've just noticed this edit by SimonJones555 (talk · contribs) which caught my eye because it added a third external link to a web site with simonjoneshistorian in its name. Checking the article history I found that they too were added by the same user here, plus a cite to a book by Simon Jones here. Looking through the users contributions I mainly see additions of external links to similarly named web sites. The edits seem constructive as I don't see them being immediately reverted. If you have a moment, I would be grateful if you could take a quick look to see if there is a problem. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will have a look. --John (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the matter with them in their talk page. --John (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

[edit]

Talk:Richard Wendene

[edit]

Back at it again, I see. Can someone, anyone deal with this case of utterly incompetant editing and edit warring????? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddfellows

[edit]

Greetings John! I was wondering if you could give a short comment about Oddfellows#Manchester Unity Credit Union? The section is restored again, and the sources that failed to verify the material are replaced by news ones. What's interesting though, is that the new sources consist of individual reports, registers and guides (Center for Responsible Credit; FCA Mutuals Public Register; Association of British Credit Unions Limited; The Financial Services Compensation Scheme). I was wondering if there still might be problems with WP:PRIMARY, and if there is need for some sound and coherent secondary sources for the section. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the action you have taken there in tagging it for primary sources. --John (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and thanks for having the time! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scottish elections

[edit]

Can I please ask you and the other parties involved in this extremely slow-burning edit war to start a fresh discussion on the template talk page? GiantSnowman 19:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I think it is really only one editor who is ignoring WP:MOSICONS on a subset of these templates. Previous discussions have resulted in no consensus to use these flags in this way but I would be happy to discuss it again. --John (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you following the discussion, GiantSnowman? This is all we get, this one editor who just likes the tiny flags, has no consensus for keeping them, but reckons his one unevidenced opinion trumps several people who disagree, as well as WP:MOSFLAG. What should we do next? --John (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am following, I just see bickering from both sides - we're no closer to agreement than we were before. It's basically 2 v 1 - I wonder if this needs escalating to DRN? GiantSnowman 20:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

[edit]

Hey, I meant to get back with you sooner and forgot. Have you noticed any problems with TFA text? - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, but to be honest I haven't been systematically looking. Nothing "notable" as you might say. --John (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


h2g2

[edit]

<boing>
HooToo needs some help h2g2
83.163.143.216 (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


<sadface>You could as well reduce the entire article to
h2g2: Mostly Harmless
That would be a compliment for the HooToo Society and as informative for the world reading wikipedia
<tit>83.163.143.216 (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

[edit]

Apology

[edit]

I feel like I came across as too strident in my comments on the Treblinka talk page. I guess I just felt really offended when you said the article doesn’t even deserve GA status, as Poeticbent has put a lot of work into making the article comprehensive, accurate, and fairly well-referenced, while I’ve put a lot of effort into fixing up the prose. The difficulty is that Poeticbent is not a native English speaker, so his prose is often wordy, convoluted, unclear, and awkward to read. I’ve tried my best to clean it up, but you can’t really know how to reword an ambiguous sentence unless you know a great deal about the topic, which I don’t. Poeticbent is probably our most active editor on the English Wikipedia dealing with the Holocaust in Poland, but he never takes his work to FAC because his prose is lackluster at best.

Anyway, neither he nor I own the article, and you do have some valid points regarding consistently using British English and keeping the language clear and concise, so I shouldn’t have dismissed your feedback out of hand like I did. Regarding taking it back to FAC, it has some other shortfallings besides the awkward prose; it’s not quite as comprehensive as it should be (there’s no historiography section, for instance), and some of the sourcing is subpar. My plan is to work on the article in the coming months as I have time and bring it back to FAC when I feel like it’s ready. Thanks again for taking the time to thoroughly vet the prose; sometimes you just need a fresh pair of eyes on an article. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice of you. Don't worry, I think I was a bit more abrasive than I intended and you were only defending your work. I think it is looking a bit better now. It's actually looking rather good. I still think FAR could be a possibility with a little more work. Take care, --John (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Article Reappears

[edit]

Evening, last year I messaged you regarding an article that appeared on Wikipedia on spurious grounds. Within about 48 hours, the article was deleted. The articles was: Ryder Ripps; and it is back. I provided a number of points as to why I believed this page was not notable, which has been deleted. I don't know if that can still be accessed as it was deleted with the page:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Ryder_Ripps#Deletion

I don't want to go through all the points again, in the case my previous points cannot be retrieved. But in summary, the original Ryder Ripps page was created by the subject, Ryder Ripps. It was created with a slew of other articles relating to the subject, i.e. sites he created and his father. These were all deleted, but it the Ryder Ripps page itself survived; being deleted or suggested for deletion several times.

The page still reads like it has been composed by the subject, or affiliate, as a vanity page, i.e. "several well-known internet institutions like Internet Archeology, Dump.fm..." Both of those sites have an Alexa Rank in the range of 600,000, which is probably something like 200-400 visits / day each. They are not institutions, they are not well known and they are not notable.

Below is a copy of my original message re. the article:

Evening, around 18 months ago I forwarded an issue to your attention regarding content that needed removing which you dealt with swiftly. I have identified a vanity biogaraphy on WP; that in my opinion really shouldn't be here. The article is: Ryder Ripps. If you look into the history, it seems fairly obvious the page was created by the subject of the article. I suggested the article for deletion, but it was quickly removed by an IP with no history, with the note: "Removing notability concern. Ripps has more than enough established references including New York Times and PBS." I've created some bullet-points on the nature of the article and its subject: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Ryder_Ripps#Deletion The IP the removed the article was from New York, where the subject lives.

--Hierarchypedia (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will have a look this evening. --John (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a couple of poor sources from it but it seems to me to pass notability. If you disagree, take it to AfD. --John (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

[edit]

TQ

[edit]

Maybe you should unblock TQ now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:I am. furhan. (talk • contribs)

Why? --John (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored User:Tetra quark's talk page access. All they need to do to get unblocked is to post a reasonable unblock request that an admin will find acceptable. Indefinite doesn't have to mean forever but their behaviour was disruptive and they had become a net negative to the project. If they can demonstrate that they will improve their behaviour, there is no harm in an unblock. --John (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block request of Alskoj

[edit]

John, can you please block user:Alskoj as he/she is vandalizing numerous pages. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --John (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However...

[edit]

If I recall correctly you posted a stimulating and wise essay about "however" somewhere on WP, but I can't find it. Can you point me in the right direction, please, if I am not delusional about the existence of the page? Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it's at User:John/however. My efforts to move it into Wikipedia essay space were thwarted I think, but I think WP:WTA was amended slightly to take it into account, if I recall correctly. --John (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Thank you for that. I shall go and reread, with a view to referring an editor or two to it. Tim riley talk 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure to be of help. --John (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruptive editing by QuackGuru

[edit]

John, I hope all is well with you! I'm sorry to have to come and ask your assistance again, but I'm afraid I must. Yesterday, an edit war ensued over the neutrality of the lede on Acupuncture and instead of edit war I placed a POV template tag to the lede and added a section on the talk page. The tag says clearly not to remove it until disputes have been resolved, but QuackGuru ignored it and removed it anyway. I began a section and listed the problems on the talk page, per policy, and QuackGuru chose to ignore it as well removing the tag without justification, ignoring the tag's template message, and ignoring the talk page. If this was the first time he has done this, I wouldn't be here, but I had been researching QuackGuru's behavior a few weeks ago and found that he has a long history of removing the POV tag, quickly, before disputes have been resolved: such as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and so on. He does this same thing on other articles too like this I have always thought the purpose of the pov template was to let other editors know there is a neutrality dispute (and there clearly is) so that we can attract other, hopefully neutral, editors to the conversation. When the tag is inappropriately and continually removed, we will only ever have a small group of editors ever weighing the issues. Knowing QuackGuru's long history of disruptive tag removal, I believe the reason he removes it continually is that he only wants a small group of editors on the article, and for the heat of the battleground to prevail over the light of reasoned discourse. Because editors like QuackGuru are rarely blocked or topic banned, they are free to edit war and disrupt with impunity while other editors, such as myself, are forced to stand aside because we choose to adhere to policies.

To illustrate the point that QuackGuru is beyond correcting his own behavior, QuackGuru was only recently told by AdjWilley that something needs to change and had suggested that QuackGuru limit himself to a 1RR or a BRD cycle, which QuackGuru is obviously ignoring as well. He reverted a lot of material yesterday, not just the tag I added, and never appeared on the talk page to discuss any of it. If something needs to change, and QuackGuru is unwilling to do it, what is left? A few months ago, you had told me that we should revisit this situation possibly after Easter. Is it a good time? I wouldn't even come here, John, I would go straight to Arbcom if it weren't for the fact that I have my own family situation to deal with which makes it difficult to give the necessary time ArbCom requires. Frankly, even though you told me to come to you after Easter, I would rather not come here to ask anything of you because QG has preemptively accused you of being an involved admin. It's obvious he did this only because he knows you are one of the few good admins who both knows his game and refuses to think of him as a necessary evil and the only threat to his ability to edit freely. Then again, I also think most admins don't want to get involved with him because he sends them the same subtle, preemptive threats as well, like he did to Shii here in order to justify ignoring Shii's consus reading and edit against it with impunity. Anywho, is this something you would like to look at now? If not, do you have any suggestions of action I could take? I don't know of many good admins who are as well versed in QuackGuru's long history of bad behavior as you, and I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to take the necessary action against QuackGuru given the farce he has accused you of in order to tie your hands, but I know one way or another his bad behavior on the acupuncture article has to stop and QuackGuru has proven he won't be the one to stop himself. LesVegas (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update, as soon as I posted here, QuackGuru added this to the talk page, only minutes later. Is your talk page in his watchlist? LesVegas (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I took a quick look and the page is protected with discussion on the talk page. I am sorry this issue has arisen again. It needs to be addressed. We cannot go on like this. I will try to think in the next 24 hours of something more substantive to propose. --John (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much John! LesVegas (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is too funny not to share it, but I'm glad I caught it so that you wouldn't think I was misleading you about a claim I made. If anyone but QuackGuru did this I would chalk it up as a funny coincidence, but not only did QuackGuru suddenly start posting at the Acupuncture talk POV-Lede section just minutes after I came here claiming that he wasn't, he also archived his talk page, also coincidentally just minutes after I posted a link to it here. So that link in my original post showing you where Adjwilley told QuackGuru "something needs to change" doesn't work. It's essentially a dead link now because QuackGuru deleted it. Fortunately, it's after Easter which means it can be resurrected so in case you weren't able to see it before QuackGuru deleted it, here is the text in full, removed 5 minutes after I posted here. Isn't it amusing how QuackGuru can turn even the most boring edits into one big fun WP: GAME? LesVegas (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LesVegas, undoubtedly QuackGuru has this page on their watchlist. My guess is that the talk page post on Acupuncture was a minor correction of an oversight, and the user talk page archive was QG's way of letting you know that they are aware of this conversation without actually having to say anything here. (In a way that is a good thing...focusing on content over user talk page banter is part of what I was asking for.) On the acupuncture page, yes there was a huge edit war, but if you actually start counting reverts you'll find that QG only had 2...maybe 3 depending on how much of a wikilawer the counter is. There are several other users that made more reverts than that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adjwilley, thanks for paying attention to this matter and I wish I could assume good faith to the extent you can and really believe it was a good natured signal, but unfortunately I have edited with QuackGuru for some time now. Im afraid I have to disagree about the count, QuackGuru had 4 reverts at least, I counted them all and if you're interested I will show you each one. Not only that, it wasn't a BRD cycle either. No discussion whatsoever on this topic until I minutes after I posted on John's page. Other editors had 4 reverts too, (Kww) and you know, it's frustrating when you adhere to policies and nobody else does. But what really takes the cake, for me, wasn't the fact that QG edit warred, or even that he removed an entire section without discussion or consensus or even that he edit warred a large number of high quality MEDRS sources out of the article, actually calling them "low quality", it's the fact that he removed a POV tag which says "don't remove until the disputes have been resolved" off the article, and he has done it again and again. How are we supposed to attract new editors if tags like this are continually removed? How are we supposed to have any semblance of decorum on the article if editors continually and flagrantly ignore rules? LesVegas (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consecutive edits usually don't count as reverts. Though QG made a bunch of very bold removals, they were clustered into two groups, and only interrupted by a bot edit and a user's null-edit (revert then self-revert). I might have overlooked something, but I don't think it's worth talking about at this point because it's not going to change anything. The article is protected and everybody's hands were dirty. Nobody's getting blocked this time around.

I'm probably not the one you want to talk with about the utility of article maintenance tags. You might be able to guess my feelings about them by looking at my user page :-). ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reverts were of material that was added less than 24 hours before. What QuackGuru usually does is make several edits, like tagging something first, then removes it. It's much harder to detect that way. He rarely just presses the "undo" button. Things like this are why we have discretionary sanctions, because admins who are familiar with this sort of GAMEy behavior can easily topic ban editors who have patterns like this. Oftentimes, ArbCom has a hard time deciphering the policy violations, just as you are with the reverts. And it's not your fault, QuackGuru is just really good at covering his tracks sometimes. But my biggest point isn't even the large edit war that ensued yesterday. It's that QG removed a tag that clearly says not to remove it, and has done this over and over again. Someone has to put a stop to this. We need new editors on the article, but we will never get them if QG continually removes the very templates that notify new editors of a dispute and goes unpunished. LesVegas (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, as the filing party of this case, I've thought long and hard about the possible outcomes and scenarios. Based on the previous case request filed by Kww and the comments put out so far, I could envision the following things happening sometime soon:
1. Those who deserve to be sanctioned are appropriately sanctioned - Which is esentially the ideal scenario, but this is getting increasingly less likely.
2. Case is declined - We're at 0 accepts and 2 declines now, so this seems to be where it might be heading
3. Kww gets what he wants - So that he can "immediately and promptly show pseudoscience advocates the door", as he puts it
My question to you is this: Do you generally consider self-requested blocks, and if so, what are your criteria for doing so? I've thought about this for some time, and I am convinced that if scenarios 2 or 3 play out, leaving this place will be the best option for me. I want to approach an administrator whom I trust, respect, and is willing to make the block, though, because someone will have to do it eventually (and it better not be Kww). The duration is for an indefinite period. It's a purely hypothetical situation, but I want to be prepared for the worst. -A1candidate 23:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never done this. I might be prepared to consider it. Let's see what else can be done first. --John (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, that would be a shame to have A1 self banned! He's a really good editor. But I see why he's frustrated enough to want to commit Wiki assisted suicide, or whatever you'd call it. I mean, he has to deal with editors like this: where reliable sources that take forever to compose together are just removed without discussion. I know that was a bold edit on A1's part, but really only bold because it challenges QuackGuru's ownership of the article since it's backed up by great sources and adds balance and ought to, at least, be discussed before deleting. But, you know, that's nothing compared to, removing claims from reliable sources here because "no page number was given" just shortly prior to tagging it and demanding one. I've seen QuackGuru do this a few times before, where he tags something and then almost immediately removes it afterward so that his diffs appear more reasonable than they are (if you happen to overlook the time stamp, that is.) That type of gaming behavior really needs to stop. Like you, I doubt Arbcom will give any sort of resolution to the matter, at least as the case is currently framed. On the positive side of things, there is finally a dispute tag at the top of the page! Do you have any thoughts about what editors like A1 and myself, frustrated with certain disruptive editors, might want to do from here? LesVegas (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I hate to say things like "QuackGuru has done this a few times before" and not back it up with any diffs so let me add some here. So here's a few prototypical instances where QuackGuru tags three different NIH/NCCAM sources 1 2 3 and then deletes them all less than 30 minutes later. There is no telling how many good sources have been memory holed due to these methods. Anywho, it is just a pet peeve of mine to always try using diffs to back up whatever I say about someone on Wikipedia, even if it's someone whose reputation is rather notorious. LesVegas (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you have supported your statement here with diffs. What remedy do you seek? One of the things about QG is that he can occasionally be helpful and conciliatory if approached right. Whether he needs the threat of sanctions hanging over him to achieve this, is something I am beginning to form an opinion on. What is the change you seek? --John (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you have any thoughts about what editors like A1 and myself, frustrated with certain disruptive editors, might want to do from here?" Perhaps recognizing that editors like yourself are the source of the problem and voluntarily refraining from editing all articles related to pseudoscience or CAM? That would certainly reduce the discord associated with the articles and have the added bonus of keeping them grounded in reality. That assumes, of course, that you want to have articles about these topics reflect scientific consensus on them. The primary reason QG is tolerated is because he has the patience to review and correct these articles on a daily basis, something very few of us can bring ourselves to do. If that was no longer necessary, more of us would look favorably on editing restrictions for QG.—Kww(talk) 14:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, thank you for your response and continued concern for this matter! My thinking is that QuackGuru has long ago worn down the patience from the much larger community of Wikipedia editors, and the only reason proper punishment has yet to be administered to him is the presence of a small group of editors who fight for QuackGuru because they have a common POV and they are willing to excuse his bad behavior at every turn. They beg and plead for him continually and make endless excuses for his behavior, and it persists and then they beg and plead some more. Because this cycle continues, it sends a signal to other editors that they can get away with anything. And just so long as their behavior doesn't exceed what QuackGuru does, and just so long as QuackGuru isn't punished they can violate any rules they want. Even Kww, who I would think would know better, had 5 reverts the other day and has been making uncivil accusations. That alone should support that QuackGuru's behavior is contagious. With even administrators disregarding all the rules, the problem has reached critical mass, and it's because QuackGuru has been kept around for some perceived greater good. Just look at this long list of history on adminstrative noticeboards, AE, RfC, Arbcom and the like to see that he has been given every chance and has failed. I would like to think I am also the type of person who sees the best in people, and I always try. But probably the only good trait I can now see in QuackGuru is how creative he is in concealing disruptive behavior and concocting new and unprecedented ways to pester editors like I caught him doing in this thread. This morning, I read the entire thread where QuackGuru was topic banned for one year in pseudoscience topics. I laughed at how, even with a punishment like that, his behavior has not changed at all and really has only worsened. So given QuackGuru's history, and the fact that his continued misbehavior has spilled over into other editors, if I were administering the punishment I would give him a permanent topic ban. I know his cohorts would be upset, but that would be because it would signal to them that their own behavior had also better shape up. Now, I know that might be a lot to ask of you, given the fact that QuackGuru has already showed you his gun, although it's full of duds as everyone knows, but a one year topic ban is not unprecedented. The only reason I wouldn't suggest that first is that it's already been administered, and it obviously failed to signal to him that he should correct his behavior. So, really, what is left? LesVegas (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above was quite serious. If you and the other editors your find yourself allied with would agree to stop editing, I'm sure that we could get a community consensus to topic ban QG at the same time. You're right that many tolerate QG simply because he serves as an impediment to pseudoscience and alt-med advocacy. If the advocacy would cease, so would the community's tolerance for QG.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, some diffs have been presented to support the premise that QG has behaved disruptively in this area. We also have this which is a useful non-exhaustive list of administrative discussions regarding QG. Can you present a corresponding set of evidence in regard to LesVegas? Specifically it would be good to see you back up the claim that this user has engaged in "pseudoscience and alt-med advocacy". Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that LesVegas twists the results of discussions was a long topic of discussion here full text here, and I note that he still expects us to believe that he wasn't being deceptive in furtherance of his POV. I find his efforts to claim that I am "twisting sources" by using "many within the field of science view acupuncture as 'quackery' and 'pseudoscience,' and its effect as 'theatrical placebo'" as support for "Many within the scientific community consider it to be quackery" telling: it's a fair paraphrase (indeed, a softening, if anything), but it does serve to denigrate acupuncture, so he objects, using arguments that can't pass the blush test. It's fairly easy to point you at his entire edit history and say "show me an edit that didn't serve to promote pseudoscience and alternative medicine, but some highlights of his editing include the old "too Western" canard, which he repeats in this section, an edit that reveals that he doesn't understand that Wikipedia articles about medical and scientific topics are supposed to be written from a scientific perspective. The issue with diffs is an embarassment of riches problem: every argument and every edit ultimately serves to paint acupuncture in a more favourable light. He gets angry with editors that apply more stringent standards to pro-TCM and pro-acupuncture sources, which betrays a lack of understanding that we are supposed to view sources that contradict scientific and medical consensus more stringently. That's the underlying dilemma, and the reason that the arguments keep occurring: since our medical articles are supposed to portray scientific consensus, we aren't supposed to treat sources that disregard or contradict it as being on par with those that support it. LesVegas won't accept that. Even if in his heart he believes he is restoring balance, the effect is advocacy.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, as much as I would love to reply to each of Kww's above complaints, I'm afraid I have some family obligations which will occupy my time until tomorrow. I do think most of these diffs speak for themselves if you read the context fully and think Kww's issues with me have more to do with Kww's POV, but if there are any diffs here which bother you or any other questions you have, please ask and I will be happy to respond fully tomorrow. I would like to give you a little context to show you where Kww believes we can declare a source, Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine unreliable if it has positive findings, yet when this same journal has negative findings? Kww actually believes, unabashedly, that we should to use it for to denigration. Just keep that in mind as you read through these diffs. If holding editors to one standard and doing my best to prevent hypocritical use of rules and sources on the acupuncture page is a crime, I will be the first to proudly declare I'm guilty as charged. LesVegas (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hypocritical at all, but that you see it that way is the root of the problem: since the correct way of handling sources doesn't line up with what you perceive as fair, the discussions inevitably spiral out of control. When a source makes a statement counter to its own bias, concerns about bias are lessened. When a source makes a statement that corresponds with scientific consensus, that doesn't present the same concerns about reliability that it does when the source makes statements that either contradict that consensus or isn't supported by it. That's what evaluating sources is all about.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Real quick, the primary objection to the eCAM source has been its lack of Medline indexing, and but every time any editor finds an eCAM article that is pro-alt med, it's met with no shortage of howls. But to use it to denigrate an alt med subject? Suddenly the Medline indexing issue is not only a non-issue, but we can use that source 22 times in the article and it's roundly cheered by you for its reliability. How is that not hypocritical? Of course I should point things like that out, and I make no apologies for doing so. And I will also argue issues like what you said yesterday when you unabashedly stated that all research from Chinese authors are unreliable. We have systemic bias policies for that very reason. Should I sit on the sidelines and allow you to conveniently forget that we have policies like this? I'm sorry you feel that constitutes pushing pseudoscience. LesVegas (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find a diff of me saying that, because I didn't. However, per http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9551280 , yes, Chinese research holds a substantial bias in favor of TCM and related topics: "Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive". No policy in Wikipedia would require us to neglect this when considering a source. As for "resoundly cheering its [EBACAM's] reliability", no, I don't think you can find that I've done so. My concerns about bias pretty much go away when a journal established to champion alt-med admits to causing injuries, though: my only remaining concern would be whether that bias caused it to understate them.—Kww(talk) 23:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a moment so I'll respond and wanted to say I'll take your word for it that you never objected to eCAM for lack of Medline indexing, like some other editors did. And I don't want to turn this into a discussion on the relevance of 17 yr old studies about Chinese scientists here on John's talk page because we are venturing off topic already. Your original claim was that I'm a pseudoscience advocate, but every diff you provided showed my consistent promotion of policy above all else.But Kww, you elevate WP: FRINGE above WP:BALANCE and every other NPOV policy we have and when I argue that editors try to not forget the our multitude of policies and guidelines people like to sling mud at me. The funny thing is, I don't really even care all that much about acupuncture. I've gotten acupuncture treatments before and like it and know quite a bit about it because I did my dissertation on aspects of Han dynasty classical texts, but I've said before I think TCM is bunk and could care less about it. What I do care about is that policies are upheld, that NPOV is at least thought about from time to time, and that editors who continually disregard these rules are punished. As soon as I discovered the acupuncture page, I was immediately taken aback by how slanted it was and that's the only reason I still edit there, to remind editors WP: FRINGE isn't the only policy we have. So I would gladly walk away from the page if it meant QuackGuru was permenantly topic banned, but who then will be there to remind you of our other policies? Who will be there to resist totalitarian efforts by you and others to create COI editing restrictions for alt-med practitioners? Or stand up to you when you bully editors like Littleoliveoil? You would love it if I went away and you had one less editor standing in your way. But I think QuackGuru's long standing disruptive behavior doesn't warrant that he only gets proper punishment if someone who has done no wrong also gets forced out. You say that QuackGuru needs to be topic banned, but only if I and others are forced to walk away as well? I really fail to see your logic that punishment be doled out to the guilty only when we apply it to the innocent first. Is there a criminal justice system in the history of the world that has ever followed that line of thought? Listen, QuackGuru has failed time and again to rectify his behavior and has proven he's incorrigible and you are making it much more complicated than that because you share his leanings. LesVegas (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE doesn't overrule our other policies, but it indicates how to keep them from being a suicide pact. Yes, I would love it if you went away, I won't deny that, but it's because you show a persistent inability to edit articles about fringe topics but persist on doing so anyway. As I said above, even if you are motivated by a misunderstanding of NPOV, the net effect of your edits is to advocate fringe science. In the spirit of "comment on the edits, not the editor", I really don't care if you are a wonderful, well-intentioned person: your edits damage articles.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have a proposal

[edit]

I've been thinking over the past few days about this situation and wanted to make a proposal here. Kww, I have considered what you said and I'm willing to offer you a compromise. Here is how it works.

1. QuackGuru gets a permanent topic ban. Everyone knows he deserves it a hundred times over, even Kww. But Kww's reluctance to support it is that he's afraid I will "POV push" or something. So,
2. In exchange for QuackGuru's permanent topic ban, I walk away from the article, the talk page, and the entire subject altogether for 6 months. I will go edit history articles and chase vandals during this time and might even lose my interest in the topic altogether. As I said, I only became involved in the page in the first place because it was a subject area I have some expertise with and became very dismayed by what I perceived were major neutrality issues. Despite continued issues, I am willing to walk away for 6 months because I think the possibility exists that solutions to the article's problems could still come about, maybe even better, from a fresh set of eyes. For instance, I was encouraged by this edit which was really a creative solution to a problem with the lede everyone has had. Instead of doing what I've supported, which was to balance negative Quackwatch statements with pro ones from textbooks or medical organizations, CorporateM trimmed both sides out and got rid of the bloat all at once. I wasn't even aware how long it was until I saw his new edit. His edit did not stand, however, because the page owner didn't approve. QuackGuru deceptively indicated that Wikipedia: LEADLENGTH says it must be 4 paragraphs. That wasn't true at all, it says articles the length of articles as long as Acupuncture should be 3-4, and Corporate's edit made it 3. Good neutral edits like this will never get made to this article as long as QuackGuru is allowed to have any presence on the article. Not only did QuackGuru deceptively edit it and restore the bloat, he effectively removed all the well sourced, balancing aspects at once, and now it's back to battleground square one. Anywho, there are edits I would still like to make and debates I still want to engage in, but I'm willing to step aside for a very long time to see what creative ideas other editors might come up with first. They may just render my edits moot and I won't have to ever come back. I'm open to that and honestly hope it happens.
3. Kww walks away from the article, talk page and subject for the same length of time as I do. I'm afraid there is no way I can sit on the sidelines for 6 months and watch Kww fight to censor meta-analyses all because they have a pro acupuncture result, edit war and make what I believe are uncivil accusations towards others and not speak my mind and try doing something about it. But I also believe this is not the real Kww. I have seen a good side as well, and think there are still some admirable qualities in him. I'm guessing it is highly uncharacteristic for Kww to break the 3RR or be uncivil or else he would not have ever become an administrator in the first place. So I think a long cooling off period would probably be in his best interests anyway before he gets himself into real trouble. And 6 months later, Kww and I are both free to come back to the subject and edit how we see fit. If we even see fit.
4. As a final condition, Kww will give John his full support in topic banning QuackGuru. QG has unfortunately made things difficult for John and he would likely get some grief over doing what has long been necessary, but Kww is enormously respected amongst these editors and on Wikipedia in general and his full support will keep John from having to engage in a sideshow.

This is what I'm willing to offer. The alternative to this is AE or Arbcom, and Kww knows I have the diffs to put QuackGuru away for good anyhow. QuackGuru has made that part rather easy. I'd rather not go that route because it's long and time consuming and full of drama. But I'm willing to if necessary. Obviously AE or Arbcom won't topic ban me for 6 months because I have done no wrong, but I'm voluntarily offering as much right now out of the spirit of sacrifice and compromise. LesVegas (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any context/background regarding @QuackGuru:'s editing, however I disagree with the depiction of him/her reverting my trim of the Lead as disruptive. On the contrary, WP:LEAD does not require that the Lead be 4 paragraphs, but does allow for it on topics large enough to warrant it. Also, I left a poor edit summary, because what I really meant was that there was excess repetition and detail, whereas WP:LEAD says it should be a summary, not that it was too long in general. Finally, the Talk page showed strong support for QuackGuru's version and most editors seemed to disagree with my suggestion that it needs to focus more on acupuncture as an ancient chinese tradition - part of their cultural heritage. The proposal that someone support a topic ban as part of an agreement sounds extremely inappropriate. It is not something that should be negotiated, rather editors should support it if they support it as being what's best for Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 16:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CorporateM, you might not have been aware that in QuackGuru's revert, he left out the supports by medical organizations which balanced it, which I and others supported. I, for one, liked your edit. And I'm not suggesting QuackGuru be topic banned for that, not in the least. It's for a very long history of disruption he has. I agree with you that topic bans shouldn't be negotiated either, and AE or Arbcom will undoubtedly dish one out, but I'm in a nice mood today and felt like extending an olive branch to Kww who earlier wanted conditions with QG's topic ban. LesVegas (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-starter as a compromise. It seems rooted in the notion that LesVegas hasn't been the source of the difficulties, but that his absence from the article should be sufficient to satisfy me. Neither is true.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well that leaves me no other option than AE or Arbcom I suppose, unless John wants to intervene instead. Kww, you made a mistake to dismiss my compromise so readily. I think you believe the rest of Wikipedia agrees with your editing views, but if you look on the MEDRS talk page there's an RfC started by a highly respected editor to root out Quackwatch from all our articles. My views on editing standards are supported by our moderate editors and I think you already know Arbcom won't see it your way. It's too bad you're not willing to make any concessions, but such is the way of the crusader. LesVegas (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Less Vegas, this proposal, in my opinion, betrays an unhealthy investment in the topic and perhaps an inflated estimation of your own impact. I think a break from the topic might be a healthy thing regardless of what others do. I don't think another Arbcom request would achieve anything other than irritating the arbs at this point in time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...if you look on the MEDRS talk page there's an RfC started by a highly respected editor to root out Quackwatch from all our articles." That's highly misleading. I'm not sure whether I should be surprised or not. --NeilN talk to me 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adjwilley, I have thus far made a total of a measly 51 edits to the article, compared to QuackGuru's 1344, which is 15 percent of all edits to the page in its history and QG only started a couple of years ago. To put that in perspective, the number 2 editor, Backin72 has 416 edits, less than a third of QuackGuru's. But you're saying I have an unhealthy investment in the topic? And Kww is the one who thinks QG should only be banned if I walk away. Why is it that I get attacked like this for trying to compromise? I can totally see why A1Candidate gets upset when editors make unsubstantiated accusations towards him, because things like what you said toward me tend to stick. And you might be right about irritating Arbcom, but I also recall that several editors in Arbcom are practically expecting a good case to come about from QuackGuru, some even accepted the E-Cig case even though it wasn't ripe enough only because they knew they'd hear a case on QG at some point. In fact, I don't recall anyone making statements suggesting QG's conduct was okay. I recall AGK saying something like "we really need to examine this editor's conduct," in a case that everyone agreed was only premature due to recent sanctions. Acupuncture isn't such a case. My only reluctance there is my own lack of desire to invest time in both the proposal and case itself, but I will if necessary. LesVegas (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not single you out as a reason that the community continued to tolerate QG, I identified you as a part of a group of editors that cause the community to continue to tolerate QG.—Kww(talk) 11:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Haven't seen you in a while--my fault. Hope you and yours are doing well. Here's a small, charming kitten: you know, I'm sure, that having pets in the house increases the resistance to allergies in young children. (I read it in the Daily Mail.)

Drmies (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. It is always a pleasure to see you. --John (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

[edit]

Brittish English ?

[edit]

Hello John ! If possible, may I bother You with a simple question about ships ? (background is HH Ferry route article). I have used prow and stern for "the front" and "the back". I'm taught British English in school (like most European pupils do, I assume), and if the article in question isn't of typical American matters, I always attempt to use British English. I typically don't use words like elevator, expressway, railroad, gasoline or gas, color, appartement, drugstore etc but lift, motorway, railway, petrol, colour, flat, chemist's or pharmacy etc. My only question is whether my choice of "prow" and "stern" is in line with correct British English ? I have for instance heared "bow", and neither my digital- nor physical- dictionaries quite helps me. Sorry to bother You with such a simple matter. Boeing720 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, I'm not a ships expert but we seem to use "bow" and "stern" for front and back in British warship articles, e.g HMS Hood and HMS Eagle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prow isn't specifically BritEng AFAIK, but may refer to a certain part of the bow. I don't use it much myself, so I'm not sure if I'm right about that or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Your efforts, both of You. This matter arose while watching an American film. I don't think such vital parts of a ship may differ between naval and merchant ships. So "prow" has a wider significance than "bow", this as good to have learned. I was obviously wrong to suspect "bow" as American English only. I will use the same words as in the articles about HMS Hood and HMS Eagle. Thanks again and Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irataba FAC3

[edit]

Irataba is back at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3. We look forward to your comments there. RO(talk) 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits and comment ([47]). To be clear, are you in support, or just not opposed? RO(talk) 19:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm still mulling it over. I think I support on prose but would still like to see other reviews of the sources if they were considered a problem previously. --John (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There's no hurry. Thanks for taking a look! RO(talk) 20:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, I'd love to have your feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. RO(talk) 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have a look. Thank you for asking. --John (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Izzard

[edit]

John, you removed this material: [48] and [49] with the single-word edit summary "unref". Yet all of that material, as far as I can see, is uncontroversial bio material fully supported in other Wikipedia articles, which are all linked. Don't you think it might have been preferable to allow other editors to be given a reasonable opportunity to provide supporting sources, by adding "cite needed" tag(s), at least for a few days, or weeks? Such a large-scale removal of biographical material, without any prior warning, may be wholly within policy, but seems a little heavy-handed to say the least. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you think so Martin. I am a bit of a stickler for some sort of decent referencing on BLPs as you know. If it can be referenced I have no objections to its return. If there are references already on Wikipedia the matter becomes a simple one. --John (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should be more sorry that you deleted useful material, all non-controversial, and all central to Izzard's career, without even asking anyone to help fix it. What I think about anything doesn't matter at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. I do value your opinion. Would you like to help me write it as a proper article rather than an unreferenced collection of fancruft? --John (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the material in those eight paragraphs that you deleted as a "collection of fancruft?" To me they looked like a chronological sequence of easily-verifiable facts. By all means start with those! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is to be a good article I think we should not start with the former material and try to reference it. I think we should start by finding the best sources about him and trying to summarise what they say. Tell you what, I'll post in article talk and we can continue this conversation there. --John (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

[edit]

Query

[edit]

Imagine the following situation:

  • Admin A issues a hasty topic ban for an editor at WP:AN/I before the community has a chance to reach a consensus [50]
  • Admin B opposes Admin A's impulsive closure of the discussion. Admin B urges Admin A to reopen the discussion or seek another Admin to review the closing [51]

What can be done about this? -A1candidate 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it back to AN/I? --John (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Would you like to leave a comment over there? I would very much appreciate it, thank you very much in advance! -A1candidate 20:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

[edit]

It has started again: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom&type=revision&diff=662781102&oldid=662297117 80.229.14.202 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --John (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If England, Scotland & Wales were called provinces & Northern Ireland were located on Great Briain? There'd be little resistance to using British/United Kingdom in all those bio articles-in-question :) GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the situation was a lot simpler and more like Australia, Canada and the United States, it would make things a lot easier on Wikipedia. The problem is that Scotland is a nation within a nation. There is nothing similar to compare it with. --John (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a sovereign state, which should be the dividing line. Anways, we're likely never going to agree on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we are never going to agree, which is why I agree we should not repeat the long and very unedifying discussion we had a few months ago. --John (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fleming

[edit]

My corrections to that article actually lasted 3 days. That's gotta be a Wiki-record, for these bio articles :) GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sources were they based on? --John (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland is within the United Kingdom. No joking, honest. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Please don't do this again and we'll say no more about it. --John (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

[edit]

Quixotic plea

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talla Railway

[edit]

John: I have had a look at the Talla Railway article; I'm not sure that I have much qualification to add to it. Was there something in particular you had in mind? I do see that it is "Unreferenced" at present; I think I might be able to find sufficient material in books I have to get rid of that.

I have been in touch with A J Hope (the "personal website" owner) and he didn't have much to add, except that he didn't know his website was quoted and asked that we make it clear that it is an external site.

If you have some particular modifications in mind, please let me know. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When I wrote the article in 2006 I was so new to editing I did not know the formatting, hard to believe I know! All the material comes from the sources mentioned. If you have better sources that would be great. I wouldn't use A J Hope's site as a source these days, fascinating though it is. He appears to have pinched the graphic I have made to illustrate the route, which he is welcome to do, but I would prefer attribution. I will look at re-sourcing this article and any help you can give will be appreciated. --John (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute on Edy Ganem

[edit]

Could I get a second opinion on something? I've full-protected this article following an edit war, and locked it on whatever the latest version happened to be. I'd quite like to revert to the version before it though, as I feel the latest one violates WP:BLPPRIMARY but I'm worried about being accused of WP:INVOLVED if I do. I've dropped a fuller explanation on Talk:Edy Ganem#Date of birth dispute. What should I do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the history and made the edit myself. I think next time you could reasonably have done that yourself. I've a feeling there is a policy somewhere which lays this out. I'll try to find it for you. --John (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PREFER. --John (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Ayurveda

[edit]
I would rather not discuss this with the participants in the dispute unless there is something specific to discuss. --John (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see that you fully protected Ayurveda indefinitely. That is an extraordinary remedy that was likely justified at the time. Two things have changed since then. First, ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been imposed on Complementary and alternative medicine, which should provide a way to deal with disruptive editors (either pushing fringe content such as the effectiveness of CAM, or personally attacking editors who push fringe content). Second, as a side effect of the ArbCom OccultZone case, editors who appeared to be good-faith but tendentious editors were banned as sock-puppets associated with User:OccultZone. (I call them associated because we don't know which of them is the puppet-master. OccultZone is treated as puppet-master but was not the oldest account. In any case, there has been a sock cleanout.) Would it be possible to downgrade the article to semi-protected for a while to see if a combination of ArbCom discretionary sanctions and the banning of sockpuppets has brought the edit-warring down to a manageable level? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Your suggestion sounds like a reasonable one. I will be away for the weekend but I should be able to give this a proper look on Sunday evening. --John (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I have decided to grant this request. I will change the protection to semi. All previous injunctions will remain in place; edit-warring (broadly construed) will remain prohibited, and all major changes must be agreed in talk before being enacted. Any name-calling, however mild will also earn a block. I hope these measures will lead to a return to normal editing in time. --John (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So a return to the same sanctions as before? Hmmm. Any reason to believe it will be more successful in shielding the article from pseudoscience advocacy now than it was before?—Kww(talk) 22:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a return as they were never lifted. Hmmm. One's optimism or otherwise in predicting the future depends on the faith one has in the abilities of one's colleagues to behave properly. You, as an editor involved in this dispute, have the power to help make proper editing a possibility in the future. All you and others have to do is to behave as we are all always supposed to behave; I hope you are up to it. If you, or anybody else, feels they are too invested in an area to edit it dispassionately, you, or they, are completely free to leave it and edit elsewhere. --John (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because my involvement in the topic area prevents me from blocking disruptive editors on sight, as I would in other areas. I don't consider pseudoscience advocates to be my colleagues, and I am convinced that they will constantly misbehave. Nothing about finding out that one was socking to that extent diminishes my pessimism in that regard, nor does your general failure to recognize pseudoscience advocacy as the root of the problem lessen my concern.—Kww(talk) 23:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's pretty much what I thought you thought. I can only recommend rereading my last sentence. --John (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a shame that you volunteered to administer an encyclopedia and then view taking necessary steps to administer it as a problem. Someone editing ayurveda in an effort to portray it as a legitimate medical system is no different from someone that insists the earth is 6000 years old: it may be that they legitimately believe it, but efforts to portray that belief as fact are disruption, pure and simple.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion has been noted before and it has now been noted again. --John (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if you would simply correct your behaviour, many of our problems would be resolved. Don't act as some kind of vague, capricious threat over editors that are attempting to correct problems while providing comfort to those that are creating them.—Kww(talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Troublesome IP activity at Field (physics)

[edit]

John, one (or possibly more than one) IP has been, in my opinion, making some unhelpful edits at Field (physics). This includes:

1. Removing material that, while not perfect, at least includes citations to textbooks and articles by notable physicists), then, replacing it with material that is not cited and, as far as I can tell, unconventional. As a result, the lead, right now, has no citations at all! 2. Editing other IP's comments on Talk:Field (physics), seemingly to change the record on the dialogue that has developed there. This might be an example of the same user editing his/her previous comments but under different IPs, I can't tell, of course. 3. There has possibly also been a violation (or violations) of the 3RR rule.

I have reverted many of the IPs edits (though not all of them), and I have encourage the editor to work responsively at Talk:Field (physics). I would say, however, that his/her response has not been productive. Another editor, @Maschen, has also been involved.

The IPs in question are:

24.130.26.146 50.197.189.126 2601:9:4781:6600:544f:6cdd:2f51:bcf7 2602:306:ce2f:6990:f418:da9f:274b:4195

I'm not sure if I should be asking for this, but I would favor blocking these IP addresses and putting protection on Field (physics).

Thank you, 18:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am away for the weekend but I promise to look properly on Sunday evening. John (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, after sleeping on this, I've decided that I'm going to abandon my involvement with Field (physics). In my opinion, the IP editor there doesn't understand how Wiki works, does not understand what is expected for a Wiki article, nor does he/she understand how to work with other editors. What else is new? These problems might persist there for a while, since Field (physics) is, I now recognize, a "low traffic article". If the IP was working on a more prominent article, there would be lots of other editors around to keep things in place. I am not, however, going to bother with this in this case. So, I just wanted you to know. When you get back from your break, one less thing to worry about. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both your messages. I will try to look at this tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP now has an account: Crosleybendix. Yet another editor: Epipelagic has now weighed in. Might be interesting, I don't know, I'm trying to practice restraint. Weirdness at Modern physics as well. These are articles that should be better than they are. It might sort itself out. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned the named account. Please let me know if this recurs. --John (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

[edit]

PR request

[edit]

I know I asked you before, but I was hoping you forgot versus declined, would you be interested and willing to give me some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1? I've put lot's of work into this for more than three months now, but I fear it won't go anywhere for lack of interest. What do you think? RO(talk) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to have a look but I am too tired to do it justice at the moment. Tomorrow should work though, if that is ok with you. --John (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks, John! RO(talk) 21:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a preliminary look at the article. It is very nice and I enjoyed reading it, but I have found some minor issues with the text. Would you prefer me to comment in detail at the peer review, as others have, edit the article directly, or both? I will hope to make more time for this tomorrow but for now my time is up. Thanks for inviting me. --John (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both please. Thanks for your willingness to help! RO(talk) 23:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru: WP:HOUND continues

[edit]
23 May is not recent on 11 June. I endorse Adjwilley's advice here. --John (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings John! I am sorry to message you about the same matter again, but you are familiar with QuackGuru's WP:HOUND activities. It seems that he's got back to his old routines. As there has been some discussion related to the recent changes at the Acupuncture article, user QuackGuru reintroduced some of the WP:HOUND claims, according to which "I'd been following him to articles."[52]. He was previously warned by Kww[53] about this kind of activities, later by administrator Adjwilley[54]], and most recently by Adjwilley again[55].

His post goes as follows:

See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_making_counterproductive_edits_at_the_acupuncture_page [...] QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Now, if you take a look at the link, QuackGuru says in the very first sentence that:

I told you to stop following me to other articles.[56] See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_following_me_to_other_articles_and_undoing_my_edits. See WP:HOUND.

This is exactly what QuackGuru got warned by administrators, and now he is repeating the same accusations again. I asked him to retract his comments[57], but he never did. Below a short summary:


After my post on your Talk Page (15:57, 2 September 2014)[58], user Kww warned QuackGuru (22:28, 3 September 2014)[59], stating that:

Your accusations of hounding and stalking don't appear to have any solid foundations. [...] If you let your tension and annoyance get the better of you, you are the only one that will lose.

Later, QuackGuru targeted another editor (21:15, 5 February 2015)[60], after which Kww gave an administrative warning to QuackGuru, saying (emphasis added):[61]

QG, drop this line of argument. Consider this an administrative warning. [...] If you want to find a wording that conforms to the RFC and is a little more forceful than the current statement, feel free to propose it, but bringing up nine-month-old edits in an effort to paint him making those particular edits in bad faith is unreasonable.

A couple of months ago, administrator Adjwilley left a post on QuackGuru's Talk Page, "Something needs to change":[62]

I personally am concerned with what seems to be a lack of collaboration with other editors, aggressive editing, abrasive interactions with others, and generally what one might call battleground behavior.

Just recently, administrator Adjwilley restricted QuackGuru[63] to 0RR on Acupuncture, and 1RR on any page related to alternative medicine. He stated (emphasis added):

You may use the article talk page as much as you like, but making accusations against other editors, filibustering/WP:IDHT, or focusing on contributors over content is likely to result in the removal of further privileges or a complete topic ban.

Even despite of all the administrative warnings, it seems like the user has returned to his old patterns. He is again accusing me of "following him to other articles", something which he has been already warned of. Per administrator Adjwilley, he's continued to make accusations against other editors, and focusing on contributors over content.

I hope you have time to take a look! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one[64]. He is bringing up the same old accusations of "following him to articles", an ungrounded accusation he's already got warned for. The very first sentence of his: "See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_making_counterproductive_edits_at_the_acupuncture_page. " is saying: "I told you to stop following me to other articles.[11] See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_following_me_to_other_articles_and_undoing_my_edits. See WP:HOUND."
I asked him to retract his comments[65], but he didn't. He got already warned by Kww for these accusations, and he is now bringing those up again at the article Talk Page. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you had just done a revert of six of QuackGuru's edits without providing any explanation for your reversion. When I look over the edits that you reverted, I see such things as changing hyphens to dashes (or vice versa ... I never can tell the difference between them), moving citations inside of sentences without changing either the citation or the thing cited, and moving a paragraph from one section to another: hardly the stuff of major controversy that he should have to gain your permission for in advance. I also note that the comment you are complaining about occurred before Adjwilley imposed restrictions on him. Perhaps it would be best if John used this opportunity to remind you of the perils of reverting another editor's edits without justification.—Kww(talk) 04:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jayaguru, your most recent diff is over two weeks old, and predates the edit restriction I placed on QuackGuru. If that's all you've got, this seems to amount to WP:FORUMSHOP with a bit of WP:HOUND in my opinion. I think it would be best if you went back to focusing on content rather than on other editors, and quickly. Long posts complaining about others like the above are one of the reasons QG got the restrictions, and you seem to be following in their footsteps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 2015

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Galashiels may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a [[burgh]] in [[Selkirkshire]] on the [[Gala Water]] river. The name is often shortened to "Gala" ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɡ|æ|l|ə}}.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BB I appreciate your diligence. --John (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Partridge

[edit]

Hi. A couple of years ago, you rightly tagged the Alan Partridge page as needing a lot of work. I've completely rewritten the article and sourced (most of it). I'm aiming to get the article to GA status. It's not there yet - there's still work to be done, but if you have any time - I'd appreciate any feedback you have. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will have a look. --John (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

[edit]

What can I do to stop an incivil admim?

[edit]

John, I want to keep the specifics out of it to avoid drama, but there is an administrator who has a history of calling others intentional liars on Wikipedia and it makes things really difficult to engage in a dialogue. Since this is an administrator we're talking about I feel uncomfortable dealing with it like I would a normal editor. I think this admin has even been warned before for incivility, yet persists in the behavior. If I want the behavior to stop, what should I do? LesVegas (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les, the best way for you to deal with an administrator that points out when you are intentionally being deceitful is to start being honest. You've spent the last day on Talk:Acupuncture bringing forth sources that don't support your points, intentionally leaving language out of quoted material from sources that shows that they don't support your points, misrepresenting policy contents, evading straightforward questions about your arguments and providing false answers to questions. I've been quite civil about it. If, at any point, you had chosen to stop, it would have stopped. I'd like it to stop forever, but that ball is in your court.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying to keep the drama out if this but you followed me over here to jump in and continue your accusations, so I apologize for this John. I hardly understand how I provided false sources when I pointed out neck pain, migraine phropylaxis, period pain, fibromyalgia, tension headaches, and anti-psychotic effects, all of which were new publications after April 2009, and all of which were new findings or different findings than the old list you posted here. You jumped right out accusing me of spreading intentional falsehoods and saying that none of it was refuted. You asked over and over what conditions had changed and I a couple of times I mentioned neck pain, which was also in my original post. When you realized you were wrong, instead of apologizing for calling me a liar, you doubled down. Kww, your problem is that you don't want to assume good faith but instead assume everyone is a liar, and when you're shown to be wrong you're in too deep so you just have to continue incivility at that point. It makes for toxic talk pages. I feel very uncomfortable to have to discuss civility with an administrator, and this is far from the first time you have acted inappropriately. I hope you are capable of changing your ways. LesVegas (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to help. First, I need some diffs from you both. LesVegas, show me three sample diffs of Kww being uncivil (be warned that I have a fairly high threshold for what constitutes an actionable breach of WP:CIVIL). Kww, show me three sample diffs of LesVegas misbehaving in the ways that you outline. You should both know by now that claims without evidence are worth very little. --John (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The essence of Les's argument was that there have been later Cochrane reviews that refuted the statement "Cochrane reviews found acupuncture is not effective for a wide range of conditions" in the lead. We can assume with the amount of time that Les devotes to the article that he is familiar with the study used as a citation:it reviews the contents of studies of treatment of 32 conditions, and comes to the conclusion that in 28 of the 32 cases, acupuncture has either proven ineffective or there there is no sign of effectiveness. It could be legitimately argued that the lead should read "found no evidence of effectiveness for a wide range", but that isn't the argument Les made.
  • WP:MEDDATE inapplicability. This could have started as an actual error. MEDDATE specifically exempts Cochrane reviews with "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the above window". This was pointed out at 15 jun 2015 om 22:58. If Les had stopped quoting MEDDATE at that point, I would class this as an actual error. In fact, he continued to quote MEDDATE: [66], [67] and [68]/
  • Intentionally leaving language out of quoted material. The essence of Les's argument is that the Cochrane studies he quotes somehow weaken or invalidate Ernst's conclusions. But what statements did he leave out of the quoted studies?
  1. "information available was small scale and rated to be very low or low quality by the review authors, so not completely provable and valid."
  2. "Three of the four trials in which acupuncture was compared to physiotherapy, massage or relaxation had important methodological shortcomings. Their findings are difficult to interpret, but collectively suggest slightly better results for some outcomes with the latter therapies."
  3. "There is no evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions"
  4. "The review found some evidence for the use of acupuncture in managing period pain. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies and study participants. No significant adverse effects were identified in this review. ... however there is a need for further well-designed randomised controlled trials."
In short, systematic selective quotation, designed to make studies that found no conclusive results appear better than they are. If you review the original Ernst study that these are being used as refutation for, there's a pretty good chance he would have categorized them as not demonstrating effectiveness.

As much as I would like to agree with Kww's account out of the spirit of de-escalation, it is not accurate in the least.

  • Kww states the very essence of my argument entirely wrong. The essence of my argument has not always been that latter Cochrane reviews have refuted the statement, "Cochrane reviews found acupuncture is not effective for a wide range of conditions" but rather that the support for such a statement is outdated since it was published in April 2009 and has not been updated. Since that time, there have been changes in Cochrane's view on neck pain, for example, and as the evidence base grows some changes have been made to the character of their statements. Additionally, new conditions which were not analyzed in April 2009 have emerged in Cochrane, so the number 32 which Kww keeps pointing out, has now grown, and it has grown more to the positive side than it was in 2009. This is a fact he refuses to acknowledge. Wikipedia:MEDDATE tells us to find up-to-date evidence, within the last 5 years or so. Since the source falls outside the range of 5 years, and since there have been updates to Cochrane during that time, it stands to reason that we should use a new source. So, as you can see my argument is a little more complex and policy-based than Kww makes it out to be.
  • Kww's claim that I am using Wikipedia:MEDDATE inappropriately is also entirely false. Kww stated that MEDDATE states that Cochrane Reviews are updated regularly. While this is true, and while I actually agreed with this fact, it's beside the point as I showed Kww. The fact that Cochrane reviews are regularly updated, does not change the fact that a review of Cochrane reviews by Edzard Ernst is not regularly updated and has already gone past the 5 year threshold. Why not use a new source? I did. I added a secondary source by the NHS of Cochrane evidence, which is regularly scheduled to be updated and maintained. Why not use a source like that which will always be evergreen? Why should editors go through endless arguments and debates every time a source is outdated? But the simple fact that Kww baselessly accuses me of ignoring his MEDDATE inapplicability argument, shows that he's not listening to anything I am saying on the talk pages, and perhaps that is because he's too busy using talk pages to make uncivil accusations to engage is reasoned discourse.
  • Kww accuses me of intentionally leaving out quoted material, but how can he say what my intentions are? Again, to assume my intentions are bad is to assume bad faith. But look no further than your own talk page for evidence of Kww, in pure KETTLEish fashion, doing exactly what he accuses me of, which is leaving out language of quoted material, such as:
  1. In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12 additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care. There is no evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions, though this is difficult to interpret, as exact point location could be of limited importance. Available studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects. Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment.

and

  1. In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for tension-type headache was considered insufficient. Now, with six additional trials, the authors conclude that acupuncture could be a valuable non-pharmacological tool in patients with frequent episodic or chronic tension-type headaches.

So while Kww left that quoted material out, I am not going to suggest what his intentions were because, unlike him, I think that's uncivil. I do not know what his intentions are in paraphrasing quotes. Maybe they were similar to mine, which was just showing the most relevant information to support whatever point you're trying to make. Or maybe Kww's intentions are to pull the wool over your eyes in his crusade to "forcibly expel every editor" who disagrees with him (see below). In the final analysis, there is no way for anyone to know another's intentions. But I do not think our policies allow him to baselessly accuse others of intentionally trying to spread falsehoods, and in the interest of civility I think the best course of action is to simply point out the facts and try not to make things personal. Unlike, Kww, I actually believe WP:CIVIL is a suicide pact, and I do not ever see any time where it is appropriate to be uncivil, where it is ever appropriate to insult others, where it is ever appropriate to call them liars, and especially not when all evidence points to the contrary. I believe calm, rational civil discourse will always help up to sort out the facts first. Assuming bad-faith intentions right off the bat creates a lot of heat but never any light.

  • Kww accuses me of evading straightforward questions about the source, and this couldn't be further from the truth. I originally posted all the differences I saw, and I have since found more. Kww's very first response to Cochrane updates I posted which state things like "In a previous version of this review, evidence stated X, but now is sufficient to state Y" was to say that I am it appears I am intentionally misreading a source. How can normal rational dialogue possibly ensue from that point? After that, Kww's very next argument was that we should exclude these Cochrane-updated refutations all because some of the authors are Chinese! While I personally feel it is shameful to suggest race or country of origin should have any bearing whatsoever with what makes it onto our encyclopedia, my point in bringing this up here is that it seems Kww is almost trying to make the most-combative, most offensive arguments possible right out of the gates. In the first argument he accuses me of intentionally misreading a source, and in the second argument he said we should exclude Cochrane reviews with Chinese authors. Good discourse impels us to try finding some common ground, cite policy, make reasoned and tempered statements at all times, but especially in a discussion's genesis. As I said, my argument has always been that the data behind the wide statement in question has changed. Kww appeared to assume my argument was merely Ernst has been refuted, but that's not been my argument at all. If Kww had cared to listen he would have seen me arguing that we have had some refutations, like neck pain, but we have also had new positive findings since 2009 like tension headaches, migraines, fibromyalgia, anti-psychotic effects, and so on. But Kww did not start this discussion caring to listen, he started the discussion hurling insults and incivilities. With behavior like this, how can he possibly hear my points? And the fact that he posts mistaken arguments above, contrasting to the diffs I provided, is evidence to my point that he's too busy angrily insulting me and a billion Chinese people to listen to talk page comments.

Anywho, you had asked for me to provide diffs of Kww's uncivil behavior. I provided a few of these in my argument above and in my reply to Kww. But here are a few more. You might check out this thread where Kww persistently berates me and calls me an intentional liar without any substantiation. You should also check out where he made rude and uncivil COI accusations towards me and other editors. He has also made comments like I firmly believe that if we forcibly expelled every editor that spoke in favor of acupuncture, chiropractic, Ayurveda, and similar forms of false medical treatment we could make more progress faster which hardly creates a collegial and civil editing environment. He called an editor my "accomplice" for defending me. And check out this here where he bullies Littleolive oil. I also see that he once had to be warned by you for incivility. I wasn't coming to you to block Kww, and I really wanted to keep the drama away. I am just tired of this admin with the stated goal of "forcibly expelling every editor" that speaks in favor of an alt-med accusing others without substantiation. Given his stated intentions to forcibly expel everyone who disagrees with him, it almost seems like he's trying to create charges to stick to me and others. But aside from that, it creates a toxic environment where discourse is an impossibility on our talk pages. I'm not asking you to block him, I just want Kww's behavior to stop however possible. LesVegas (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, both of you for your submissions. I will now need a day or two to properly examine them. I am quite happy to continue to discuss here while I read and ponder but I would request that you restrict yourselves to one (or fewer!) major pieces of evidence, on the practical grounds that you have each given me a lot to digest already. I am sure there is plenty of material there for me to work on, and I am a volunteer like yourselves with other demands on my time. Can I take this initial opportunity to thank you both for your diligence and quick work in presenting diffs rather than continuing the argument here? I may have questions for you both at a later time. One initial observation from a glance at the diffs is that I can more easily enforce behavioural norms than content disputes. In fact I am as powerless as any individual editor to look into specific content disputes. Nor can I read minds; if it is alleged that an editor made edits with the intent to deceive or disrupt I am unlikely to be able to take action for this intent, even though it may be true. However I can of course form a picture and look for patterns, and it is this that will take the time. Particularly in light of these serious allegations, it is vital that you both avoid any appearance of continuing to make edits which have been flagged as problematical, even when you do not agree with such flagging. Can I take it as read that you have ceased to actively dispute for the meantime? One good lesson I have learned is to pace oneself; when in a dispute it is often profitable to walk away for a few days and others will watch the area while you are gone. If one can use that time for self-reflection then that is all to the good. So, please be nice and patient with one another and with me as I look at the evidence. This will explicitly include your current contributions as well. I will be back. --John (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, John. It's no sweat not editing for a few days and if you have any questions or need clarification on anything, please message me and I will be happy to answer you. Thank you for taking the time to look at this. LesVegas (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave my evidence alone, and restrict myself to pointing out that failing to follow basic logical principles may be a competence problem rather than intentional deceit. It's at least possible that Les believes his own arguments. The problems it causes aren't substantially different.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update; I am looking at this. I have examined the diffs and should be able to come up with some recommendations later this evening. Thank you both for your patience. --John (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I haven't been able to finalise this this evening as I had hoped. I was involved in a minor traffic incident earlier. There were no injuries but dealing with it has taken all of my time and energy. I will do my utmost to resolve this as soon as possible. --John (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, John. Please take whatever time you need. I haven't been able to actively edit much this week anyhow as I have had some family issues to tend to. I'm glad to hear your traffic accident was just minor, but I still hope everything is ok. I was in a somewhat complex auto accident recently myself and, months later, I'm still driving a rental car and dealing with insurance companies! So I know how time consuming the process can be. Thank you kindly for the update. LesVegas (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Radar imaging

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. --John (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

[edit]

Omega point article and Potential Additional 3RR

[edit]

@John: @Abierma3: @Smk65536: @Isambard Kingdom: It has come to my attention that Abierma3 has been possibly engaging in multiple edit warring on the article Omega point as clearly seen on [69]. Abierma3 has reverted other submissions to Smk65536, Isambard Kingdom within the last two days, and now me, without discussing this properly on the Talk:Omega_Point page. Comments on these edits [70],[71] (and the edits around it) are of particular concern. Be aware that Smk65536 [72] was advised about 3RR their behaviour, who did acted seemingly appropriately in the circumstance.

I have just presented a preemptive WP:3RR warning [73] in the hope of avoiding further necessary conflict(s), but Abierma3 has already violated 3RR here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

[edit]

Chetro Ketl

[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO(talk) 17:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to your comments at the Chetro Ketl FAC. RO(talk) 15:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Therion (Thelema)

[edit]

Greetings John! I hope you've been enjoying your summer so far. Anyway, I was wondering what's the policy with possible WP:SPA and new users? It seems there's an editor with less than fifty edits (48 to be exact[74]) at Therion (Thelema). Moreover, pretty much all the edits of the user take place on the very article. I tried to approach the editor kindly at his Talk Page[75] but seems he took it as an offense :-)

Could you have a quick look? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

[edit]

R U Professional

[edit]

Could you perhaps have a chance to revisit R U Professional copy editing and Talk:R U Professional -- or do you think it's all set? — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About card games

[edit]

Hello John ! I'm not aware whether You play cards of any kind, but I have a rather easy question, I hope. In some games (like in German Whist) some cards are distributed while the remaining cards (which are about to be picked up, according to the rule of the specific game) form "a bunch of cards". But which word would You prefer for these cards "talon", "pack" or something else ? Example in a sentance could be "The next player then takes up a card from the talon / pack". I'm really sorry if my question is incomprehensible or if this topic isn't Your cup of tea at all. (Both versions have occurred in mentioned article) Boeing720 (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

[edit]

A shot in the dark...

[edit]

But if you're around, could you look over Monroe Edwards with an eye towards FAC? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Thank you for helping to make the page of bernie sanders. JerrySa1 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

[edit]

Note on activity

[edit]

I'm sorry I haven't been around. I have had some holidays and been taking care of family business and the fallout from a car crash. I will be back as soon as I can and will do my best to honour any requests at that time. --John (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. I hope nobody was injured! RO(talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

[edit]

ANI notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thanks for your PR and FAC comments and edits to Chetro Ketl, which is now a featured article. It was a long and interesting process, but thanks to a wealth of insights and suggestions the article is now among our best. Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to help me. RO(talk) 16:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a great pleasure to be of help. Please don't hesitate to ask me in the future. --John (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John. I'll definitely take you up on that; your suggestions and edits were a huge benefit to the article! RO(talk) 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you. Don't forget you did all the hard work. I find I have more of a knack for improving the work of others than actually writing brilliant articles myself, and I find the subjects you write about very interesting, so it is always a pleasure to look at one of your works. --John (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

[edit]

ANI close

[edit]

I have to raise issue with your close regarding Doc9871. He clearly did not get the point, or concede anything whatsoever, only realize that he was temporarily cornered when it came to posts on one specific page, Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August#WP:Don't feed the divas, and vented self-righteously even about that. The ANI was filed because of threats of harassment, personal attacks, and continual, habitual incivility (not only against me, but multiple editors, on multiple pages,for several months running), plus vows (twice) to battleground and editwar. This I-can-be-as-incivil-as-I-want-and-you're-powerless-to-stop-me pattern clearly has not changed. This is important: He actually engaged again, twice, in the behaviors the ANI was about, while the ANI was running, after being warned, and after two different kinds of sanctions were raised by multiple editors! Yet you've closed the ANI as if it were about bludgeoning at the MR, which is nothing but a side-issue someone else injected, an additional issue. A close with not even so much as a wrist slap will be seen (not just by him) as confirmation that he's a WP:VESTED editor immune to any repercussions, no matter how many behavioral policies he breaks or how often. Maybe this is a WP:ROPE plan, but I submit that when the flouting is this blatant and severe, there's no need to pay it out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were not happy with that. Technically I should perhaps have left the close to a second admin but I was concerned that leaving the thread open was creating heat when the logical matter under discussion had been settled, and this was why I took the short-cut of closing the discussion.
I know you saw my warning at the user's talk page, and per this comment, I am in agreement with you that any further misbehaviour would be eligible for a block. I tend to be more lenient than many admins, and to let people have one further chance if I think it will be less disruptive to do it that way. I do believe that as human volunteers, we all make mistakes occasionally and we can learn from them without immediate punitive measures being needed. I tend not to be so lenient if the same editor is brought before me in a few weeks on a related matter. We shall see.
I would request that you let this situation lie as it is on this occasion, as I have a strong gut feeling that this would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. If, even after reading my explanation, you are still unhappy with my actions, I will voluntarily undo my close and let discussion continue. Whatever you think best. --John (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I wasn't asking for a re-open, but a clarified close that more directly addressed the concerns I'd brought to ANI, which were about user behavior, not about effects on the MR discussion in particular. If you think that would be counterproductive at this stage, no big deal. My concern with regard to the "case" is that he already got that second chance and blew it immediately right in the middle of the ANI, and has a months' long history of this abusive behavior, plus emotive attention seeking, ultimatums, self-importance, entourage reliance, and many other behaviors covered in detail at the very essay he feels so proprietary about; there's a pretty obvious projection factor at work. Ironically when I pointed this out, he exploded with a "how dare you call me a diva!" reaction, demonstrating the very offensiveness effect the essay has while simultaneously denying it. His approach is clearly habitual, and (in this one case) is motivated by WP-unrelated "anti-p.c." WP:ACTIVISM. As I said at the ANI, I'm almost afraid to look at his editing in other areas, because I suspect it will show similar patterns of unreasonable hostility and battlegrounding, shielded from correction by his "tenure" and by his not-really-veiled threats to use others' histories against them.

My general approach to these things is to do something like the "substitute 'politically correct' with 'treating people with respect'" thought experiment. In this case, if it were any other matter and any other essay, would this have been tolerated? Swap "p.c. nonsense" out for, e.g. "Republican", "Protestant", "Azerbaijani", whatever "nonsense", but retain the same threats to battleground and harass, and apply the analysis to some other page, like a topical wikiproject advice page, MOS page, or naming convention. The answer is surely "no".

Anyway, I don't at all fault you for being more lenient than other admins (though I don't think a short topic ban would have been harsh); we need more who are tolerant, and I've generally only been critical of "Judge Dredd" admins (to my occasional wikiperil). Thanks for reading and responding.

PS: I don't have it out for Doc; I intentionally did not go through his other-topic edits, have no prior history with him that I can recall, and don't want a further one. I actually sympathize with his viewpoint more than he will accept that I do (to date). As a professional free expression activist starting in 1993, I learned a healthy suspicion about political correction arguments used to censor and thought-police other people. I frequently oppose "p.c." excesses on WP, like the ongoing moves at VPPOL to force WP to falsify history to make transgendered people happier about what personal names are used to refer to their past notable work (while also supporting compromises to do what we can within WP:CORE and WP:5P limits).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. I'd suggest letting this matter lie as well. Honestly, these things can be better dealt with when all participants walk away for a while. And I promise, if after everybody has disengaged from this, I see any more poor behaviour I will take action. The best thing now is if everybody could move on for a while. --John (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just moving that side discussion from the MR page to Alakzi's, since it was his question but not central to the MR (though of course I realize Doc would disagree with my analysis of his arguments, and that it could cause more argument). I've since reverted that post. Alakzi's been blocked, in part for things related to RM discussions, so it seems unwise to bring them up on this talk page (and useless too, at this point, since he's now been locked out of editing it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, [76] is not moving on. Are you going to be more forceful, like you were with me, in saying that a block will happen if this is not dropped? Enough already! Doc talk 03:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Bottom Blues

[edit]

Hi John. Would you care to intervene at Bell Bottom Blues – the issue's regarding persistent additions to state that an uncredited Bobby Whitlock co-wrote the song with Eric Clapton. As at the album article, Layla], I've suggested that editor(s) start a discussion, my point being that the credit hasn't changed even if Whitlock claims he wrote part of the lyrics and Clapton acknowledges it. Not only that, but I think the issue was covered sufficiently before – it wasn't as if there was no mention of Whitlock's input. Users – although I can't be sure there's necessarily more than one – seem to be averse to taking it up on the talk page. I'm a big fan of Mr Whitlock (I've done plenty of work on his article) but I don't see how we can rewrite credits based on claims and Clapton's reciprocating in interviews.

Sorry to send it your way – I have a feeling I've already over-R'ed at the song article. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy but I will try to look this evening. --John (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, perhaps it's okay after all, John. @Nicknack009: has weighed in at the song article, album article, and project page. All good – hopefully. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could use the eyes of an admin

[edit]

We have had an ANI opened since the 7th, nothing new has been added for 3 or 4 days now. We could use an Admin to take a look at it and determine what is the appropriate course of action. If requesting this oversight is in violation of any wikipedia policy, please ignore it, this is not an attempt at vote stacking or canvassing. But it seems discussion is finished there and we all would like some closure.

Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy but I will try to look this evening. --John (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An admin had settled it, no assistance is required. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

[edit]

I've promised to disengage from Lugnuts, but he keeps pinging me, "thanking" me (?), and posting on my talk page, and now is threatening to editwar again. I'm ignoring him and deleting his posts to my talk page unread, but he's not letting up. How should I respond to this harassment? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, to clarify: I'm responding to Curly's post on my talkpage where he asked me to discuss the matter. I'm inviting him to partake in a civil discussion on the talkpage of the article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lugnuts, could you please leave User:Curly Turkey alone as he is asking you to do? Curly, this obviously means you should leave Lugnuts alone too. Let's say for a week or so. None of these things you are arguing about are urgent, so please back off and let everyone get a bit of perspective. It will all look a lot simpler in a week or so. --John (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher

[edit]

Do you still watch Maggie's article?

It seems to me to be stretching the "anyone can edit" idiocy to its extremes. Sure, most people can type letters on a keyboard, but ought there not to be some kind of sentience behind those edits? Eric Corbett 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I missed those edits. I have trimmed out some additions which I did not think were improvements. Thank you for letting me know. --John (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

[edit]

Blimey, that was quick!

[edit]

I didn't even see it, although I'm not sure I really wanted to based on the user name. I reported at ANI. CassiantoTalk 21:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it before I read your report and blocked. That's what they pay us the big bucks for! --John (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Worth every penny (also in the singular I bet) Cheers :) CassiantoTalk 21:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

[edit]

Just a heads up that the vandal who makes null edits to pages with youtube links as the edit summary should always have their talk page access removed. They are a reoccurring character who will abuse their talk page without fail otherwise. Chillum 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will remember that. --John (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 August

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've fixed that up. --John (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

[edit]
Hello, John. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 08:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SavetheRedwoodsLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination of Trinity Chain Pier

[edit]

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 222, excluding "(pictured)" which doesn't count. The hook will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've trimmed it. --John (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2015)

[edit]
A Old Colony Mennonite family observing the practice of plain dress
Hello, John.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Plain dress

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Historic house • Soufflé

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]


The Signpost: 02 September 2015

[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2015)

[edit]
Two high divers in mid-air
Hello, John.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

High diving

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Plain dress • Historic house

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2015)

[edit]
Transection of a human head
Hello, John.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Head

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: High diving • Plain dress

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

At the risk of being called a snitch...

[edit]

You indef blocked Tetra Quark about six months ago, and he is openly editing via IP, and discussing article changes on his talk page. I am fairly certain this is not a permitted use of his talk page, and the fact that he is discussing article changes on his talk page while blocked is also a violation. I figured I would reach out to the Admin who blocked him in the first place. Thank you for your time and attention Scr★pIronIV 15:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask you to look at your restoration of tpa too. --NeilN talk to me 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you. I only restored TPA in case he wanted to make an unblock request. That was in May. This is September. I guess he missed his chance to appeal. --John (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Trinity Chain Pier

[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work John. Any plans to get it up to GA? I think it can be done with little further work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality article! QAI is proud of you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm really proud of how good it looks for a new article. User:Eric Corbett and User:Iridescent were a great help in getting it to such a good state so quickly. --John (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2015)

[edit]
"Boy on white horse" by Theodor Kittelsen
Hello, John.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Scottish mythology

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Head • High diving

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

[edit]

User Talk Page (QuackGuru)

[edit]

Hi there, John! How are you? I was wondering if you could have a look at the recent events at user QuackGuru's Talk Page?

I was trying to participate a discussion launched by EllenCT and SPACKlick, where they are expressing their concerns about QuackGuru's editing behaviour at Talk:Electronic cigarette. As a result, QuackGuru has misleadingly moved my comments three times under different threads he created: == Section name ==[77], == Talk page ==[78], and the latest, == Chiropractic discussion ==[79]. I have pointed him out in my Edit Summaries that my contribution was a direct reply to the thread about Electronic cigarette article, but yet he's still kept moving my comments in a distracting manner under some self-created threads totally out of topic.

The user has earlier been warned by an administrator[80] about refactoring other editors' comments, but I am afraid he is getting back to his old bad habits. After Edit Summaries, such as:

  1. Reply to section == Why did you archive everything from Talk:Electronic cigarette? ==, or
  2. My post is addressed as a direct reply to thread == Why did you archive everything from Talk:Electronic cigarette? ==. I did not start a thread == Talk page == removed from all the context. Please keep the reply to the original thread were it belongs to."

I really cannot see his rationale to misleadingly relocate my response under some "Chiropractic discussion"

As stated by administrator EdJohnston earlier: "I'm notifying User:Jayaguru-Shishya and User:QuackGuru of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS; QG is already notified. If problems continue, one or both editors may be restricted from modifying anyone else's comments on a talk page."

I hope you have time to take a look! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a look. I wonder if User:EdJohnston would take an interest in these. It does look a bit silly to me. --John (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. Do you think it'd be alright to bring my comment back under the original thread where I posted it? Edit warring the Talk Page is certainly not among my intentions. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comments from the 3RR case which you quoted were about activities on *article talk*, not user talk. The events at User talk:QuackGuru don't yet appear serious enough to justify any admin action. But I would advise User:Jayaguru-Shishya not to interfere with section headings placed by QuackGuru. If you are truly annoyed by his behavior on his own user talk, why not open a discussion on your user talk and invite him to participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audreyb52

[edit]

Hi John, I learned how to edit Wikipedia yesterday. You deleted my entries. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreyb52 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Audrey and welcome. We cannot use the material you added because of WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:COI. --John (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Multiple users reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: ). Thank you. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dennis. I thought you were taking a break from this area? I am pretty confident I am not breaking any rules with my two substantive edits to the article in several days. You should probably take some time out to study WP:NPOV and listen to what everyone is telling you about the article. We all make mistakes, eh? --John (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2015)

[edit]
Personal finance – an example image of personal budget planning software
Hello, John.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Personal finance

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Scottish mythology • Head

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

R U Professional - featured article candidate

[edit]
Notifying you, as you performed two passes of copy-editing for the article:

I've nominated the article about the song "R U Professional" for Featured Article consideration.

It's a satirical song and a form of parody music using sampling.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and good luck. I may comment there. --John (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Sting at ANI

[edit]

I mentioned your name as the blocking admin at WP:ANI, a discussion about an IP doubling the sales figures for Sting. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"That's tomorrow, and that is it for us today ... thanks again for watching, we'll leave you with Sting, and a cut off his new album." Such a good song. :P — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

[edit]

Addressed your comment

[edit]

Thanks for commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1.

It was a good recommendation, so I've implemented it directly in the article.

Thanks also for all of your copyediting help!

Perhaps you could revisit?

— Cirt (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it looks super. I will support, I think, but I need to read the article one more time first. --John (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sounds good, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2015)

[edit]
Hello, John.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Musical composition

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Personal finance • Scottish mythology

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2015)

[edit]
Costumed performers from the 2006 Bristol Renaissance Faire
Hello, John.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Costume

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Musical composition • Personal finance

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
John, thank you very much for your repeated passes-through of copy-editing help at the article R U Professional.

Thanks to your helpful copy-editing assistance, the article was successfully promoted to WP:FA quality.

Thanks again, very much !!! — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was a pleasure to be of help. Congratulations on your article. --John (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American English to British English spellings on Whale article

[edit]

Way back in April, you informed me that the Whale article was written in British English. Was it always? LjL brought up the topic over at the Whale talk page and I would like it if you'd join the discussion. Thanks Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 23:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have commented in talk and I will have a look to refresh my memory on the history of the spelling. --John (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Kilner

[edit]

Thanks for the tweaks; I knew there were some rough-and-ready parts on the article (I haven't really looked at it for a long time), but haven't had the time I wanted to give enough of a polish. Your help is greatly appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was nice to know my wee tweaks were appreciated. It's a super article, well done. --John (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2015)

[edit]
Ice hockey is an example of a team sport. Pictured is an 1893 ice hockey match at Victoria Rink, Montreal.
Hello, John.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Team sport

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Costume • Musical composition

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Could I prevail upon you for copy-editing help?

[edit]

John,

You were so helpful with copy-editing at R U Professional -- could I prevail upon you for some copy-editing help at From the Doctor to my son Thomas ?

It's currently at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1 and Johnbod helpfully mentioned there that it could use some tweaking to convert some wording from American English to British English.

Do you think you could help me out with that?

Most appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this. I will have a look in the next day or so. --John (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks very much !!! :) — Cirt (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor edits and asked a question at FAC. --John (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've removed all those three (3) sources from the article. Perhaps you could revisit ? — Cirt (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, thanks again ever so much for the copy editing help! Have you had a chance to have another look? — Cirt (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --John (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks ! — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

[edit]

Good gods...

[edit]

This and previous edits. I wasn't aware that I needed to disclose my religious leanings (or lack thereof) or I'd get someone accused of being my boyfriend... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching. --John (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Admins Don't Make It?

[edit]

Quite intrigued to know who the real Suzy was, but your lightning reflexes mean we may never know. If she is going to be eternally hidden as a redirect, however, maybe she ought to point to Absolutely Free, where at least she's mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [81][reply]

Not eternally, just until some decent sources become available. Good suggestion on the redirect though. --John (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still trying to pick through the cinders of your recent R. D. Laing tidy up. The friendship with Jensen really doesn't seem in doubt, although I can't find an English translation of his autobiography. But it's a great shame all those unsourced bits summarizing his views have been thrown away - if you've read Laing you'll know they are all pretty accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Laing and am a great fan. It all needs to be sourced though. The factoid you restored seems to have no sources that I can see. --John (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd call an 20-year friendship "a factoid", but hey, how do I know. So I guess you'll probably delete it again before I can find an English version and page number etc - but I'm pretty sure it's in that autobiography. Of course we're lucky he's actually got one? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A foreign-language source would be fine. --John (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only on-line source for that book I can find is here. But my Norwegian is not good enough to know for sure what is supported by the text. And I can only see those extracts. So I guess someone who can read Norwegian would have to confirm. The articles at no.wiki and sv.wiki don't have any sources either. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note at User talk:Profero, as he seems to have uploaded that image. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Which is your favourite Laing book? --John (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Bird of Paradise, the impenetrable Knots or the classic "The Divided Self" (which was an undergraduate set text for me). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I haven't read the first and I would say Knots did it for me. I was also recommended to read "The Divided Self" in Psych 2. Can't remember much about it, it wasn't yesterday. But I think of Knots almost every day. On here, even. --John (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JILL I’m upset you are upset

JACK I’m not upset

JILL I’m upset that you’re not upset that I’m upset you’re upset

JACK I’m upset that you’re upset that I’m not upset that you’re upset that I’m upset, when I’m not.

JILL You put me in the wrong

JACK I am not putting you in the wrong

JILL You put me in the wrong for thinking you put me in the wrong.

JACK Forgive me

JILL No

JACK I’ll never forgive you for not forgiving me

— R.D. Laing
The human condition, alas. This was an interesting project with Ken Howard and Alan Blaikley. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that looks interesting. Will listen later. --John (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Calvin Cheng

[edit]

Anonymous vandalism is continuing. Aricialam (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

[edit]

Thanks

[edit]

I know you do might disagree with my assertions that opinions cited and ascribed as such can be used even from the "Daily Mail" and that there is no such thing as a "reliable source" for celebrity gossip - but we tend to agree far more often than not overall. Thank you for noting my strong positions on Twain for sure! Collect (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Us old timers tend to gravitate towards common positions. I certainly agree with you strongly over Twain. --John (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Project Invite

[edit]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

[edit]

Nomination of International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation removal

[edit]

Hi, please explain the rationale behind this diff. Perhaps there's a relevant section in the quotations policy that I overlooked, but it seems to me that these quotes are very relevant to the article and should be included for their informative value. Thanks, --Pine✉ 04:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, really? To me this is a very basic thing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes, but a summary of the best sources. If the article was left full of random quotes it would not be an article but a quote farm. An article like this would not be our work but someone else's, which would run us into problems with our policy to be a free resource. Didn't you have to learn this basic aspect of writing in secondary school? --John (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Article talk page best?) It conveys nuance. If used as a quote, there is less responsibility for those nuances. The nuances could be stated in the Wikipedia article, but doing so might not be 'encyclopedic'. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris attacks

[edit]

Hello. With respect, it isn't "trivia" to state one of the victims collaborated with Justin Bieber. That is why I reverted your edit. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to article talk? The real question is, was this covered in any decent sources? --John (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

[edit]

You might want to give a reason for your actions in the discussion here Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks#Ahmad_Almuhammad. Jan Winnicki * 09:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or I might not. --John (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]
I'm assuming nn means Not Notable (WP:NOTABLE)Eteethan(talk) 21:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --John (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

[edit]

Today

[edit]
St Cecilia's Day
A Boy was Born

Music in your ears and heart! (in a box) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank, Gerda. Das war sehr hubsch von Dir. --John (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made a project member box, did you see? - I miss the image in the article which I started 2 years ago (on the boy's centenary), miss also Britten's title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keen to know what you think (as Administrator)

[edit]

Hello John, it's been a while. I'm trying to be as brief as well as concise, as possible. Generally in our articles about TV-series a list called "overseas" or "also aired in", is added towards the end of the article. But now has the user AlexTheWhovian imposed new language related rules. Or perhaps is it I and a few others who haven't understood ? In any case, I wasn't allowed to start a list of countries/nations in the Black Sails (TV series) and adding Denmark there, as DR3 now aires the second series. Discussion can be found at AlexTheWhovian 's talk side. (But I simply cannot get it in blue. Please go from Black Sails (TV series) -> history -> and there is a blue link to him.). The key question as I see it, is whether it's of encyclopedical value to see how well spread a certain TV-series is, or isn't it ? Should I fight AlexTheWhovian ideas, do you think ? (Though I'm so tired of the small fuss, and hence my reason to ask you for advice) Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, I agree with User:AlexTheWhovian. --John (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no matter how many times I tell Boeing720, WP:TVINTL is not a new policy, and countries where English is not the main language do not get included. They then go on to say how other articles list these countries, but WP:OTHERSTUFF then applies. It's a infinite cycle with Boeing720. And yes, concerning the edit that you linked, John, being filmed in South Africa does not make it a South African series, no matter of how it is assisted with production. (And thanks for the ping; I wasn't aware that Boeing720 was talking about me behind my back without my knowledge.) Alex|The|Whovian 07:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To Alex - do you think we should delete parts of the following articles as well ? A Touch of Frost [83], Midsummer Murders [84] or Taggart[85] or Wire in the Blood [86] ? Is not an" infinite cycle with Boeing720" - this statement is both wrong and personal. Hundereds of other contributors have helped to expand the lists in questions. And we can't have one rule for Black Sails and others rules in every other TV-series, can we ? So we are discussion basic rules here. International sales, distribution or airing does not make Wikipedia "a TV-guide" !
To John - I didn't ask for advice about Black Sails and nationality. On that topic I already had given up. But about the lists of international broadcastings, which affects lots of other articles, as in my examples above, I thought an advice could be could be handy. Sorry to have disturbed. Boeing720 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that you both continue this at article talk? If you ping me, I promise to read what you write and comment if I feel I can. How would that be? --John (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would of couce be alright ! If I only knew how to! To me ping is just a DOS-tool, so far. I can see the two figures "Your alerts" and "Your meassages". But by pointing at them, just old matters come up. Perhaps You can provide me with an explaining link ? Boeing720 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert but there is a template: {{ping|John}} would work, I think, or you could just link my user name and that would also work (I think): [[User:John]]. --John (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that hint John! I have although written "PING" (and just my signature) on your talk-sike , but this was deleted by the "almighty (?)" User:AlexTheWhovian. The issue about which TV-series that has been aired in which countries isn't the main reason why I began contributing. I.o.w. it's not of extreme importance to me, but the the underlying principles is. Can one single contributor turn things up side down before any discussion is made, and far less setteled. If You care about the principles, please have a look at the talk-page at Black Sails. In my mind, it's never a good idea to have one single contributor who starts deleting lots of old material, gathered by many contributors, simply based at his iterpretation of WP:TVINTL (in this case). According to Alex, the rule is old - but still has these lists grown up, which to me indicate they are called for and hence ought to remain. And - for instance, I really find it to be of encyclopedical value that for instance(again) Taggart "has spread through" Europe, a long time after Mark McManus passed away.(Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Czech Rep., Bulgaria, Iceland, France etc - and why should Australia be of higher importance here. OK I'm not very fond of tables and decorating flags, so many international parts could be done better. I feel.) Boeing720 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid terminator

[edit]

I am happy to announce that, as I write this, not a single biography of a living person has an online citation to The Sun. We'll see how long it lasts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Threesie, didn't you know that the jolly old currant bun also comes in paper format?! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! --John (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ritchie333, ahem. --John (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Suddenly I See, no Page Threesie" (??) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curious - the search criteria should match on any article in the category "Living people" with the text thesun.co.uk anywhere, which that one did, yet it never turned up. This search brings up a few more >:-( Is search broken? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try this. TwoTwoHello (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Only 144 of the little blighters.... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger. This one was particularly bad :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. What kind of person adds scurrilous twaddle to a BLP and sources it to a scum-rag? --John (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realise your question was rhetorical, but it seems it was this edit by somebody whose wiki-career lasted about 2 weeks in April 2010 and whose talk page contains nothing but notices of articles that have been deleted. An interesting statistic, I feel. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the kind of person who's interested in "Simon Thompson, Professor of Logic and Computation and ex head of department at the University of Kent"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaria D'Amico only has one citation, a Sun article with the headline "Goldenballs in her hands". Some choice quotes from our article: "Holding true to the popular belief that attractive female sport journalists actively seek (and usually obtain) footballers' attention.." and "..rumored by some media to have a torrid love story with Juventus.." --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm, that STUNNING Italian TV presenter who likes to wear revealing outfits ... sending, it is reported, wife POSH into a furious rage!!! GlendaSlagg123 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed out the inappropriate material from that article. What a disgrace. --John (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but she likes footy, don't she mate?? So she can't be all bad!! lol GlennSlagg123 (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sting

[edit]

IP user 85.130.221.249, who only seems to exist to make the same unsourced change to the Sting record sales, has returned now that the page's protection has been removed. Rodericksilly (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked one week. --John (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

[edit]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

[edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally found some time...

[edit]

I finished up the last bits of Monroe Edwards. Can you look it over and make sure it's still polished before I take it to FAC? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I will try to look tonight. --John (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks great. I took a slight hack to it, and I may take one more look. Please let me know if you are bringing it to FAC. --John (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you make another pass and that's pretty much what's holding it back from FAC. I have basically scoured Google Scholar and JSTOR and everything else I can think of for information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before I'm exiled from this house of horrors, would you or John mind if I took a look at this article? Eric Corbett 23:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never. I never ever mind you looking at anything I've worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, Eric. --John (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to jostle elbows but... consider your elbows jostled? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

[edit]

Upright

[edit]

Hi John, do you mind if I pick your brain (I want to do it right) to learn why 'upright=xx' is something you don't like or is appropriate to change to 'upright' or eliminate, e.g. at the Donald Trump article? (I've read WP:Extended image syntax, but that is technical, no guidance info.) Ok thx, IHTS (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. There is guidance at WP:IMGSIZE about it. Generally speaking, we use just the default image sizes. There may be occasions where for some reason an image isn't legible and needs to be larger, in which case these upright= tags are added. Where they appear to have been added randomly, I generally remove it as in this case. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually use no parameter for landscape images and simply upright for the others. In some infoboxes, where even that is considered too obtrusive, I would go as low as upright=0.7 (example), and to make music readable I would go up as high as upright=1.3 (example). I try to avoid fixed image sizes, and better infoboxes do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics

[edit]

Hi there and thanks for your support at my RfA. Now, as for the maths, I'm interested in your comment "I would take issue with your assertion that aleph-null is always equal to beth-null": I freely admit that my knowledge of set theory is almost non-existent, so I'm willing to be explained to otherwise. but beth number clearly states "start by letting ". Have I made a mistake, or is there some subtlety that I or the article is missing? BethNaught (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I think I erred in the mathematics. I was thinking of the continuum hypothesis perhaps. Serves me right for being a smart-arse. Good luck with your tools. I will strike that part of my comment. --John (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*rummages in dusty corners of disused neurons* If I remember right, by definition, and the generalized continuum hypothesis asserts that for all . But, while I was definitely in the room while someone taught set theory at one point, I can't reasonably say I ever learned it. (Incidentally, my American self at an American institution with an American professor nevertheless learned these as "aleph/beth naught", so I was quite perplexed when people didn't get the username reference.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. That always happens when I try to show off how clever I am. Bah. --John (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flags!

[edit]

You should be amused, bemused, perhaps somewhat confused when you see flags being overused, like in this instance where they are not even clickable to know what nationality is being referred to, just in case one is so ignorant as to not know country flags! I can't be bothered to try changing this, especially not on OMG1RR articles. Up to you. LjL (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see someone else removed them. I have been fascinated by flags since I was a child, but I regret the tendency of people to put them where they do not belong, or even where they are just wrong, as in the example you raise. I was present at the birth of WP:MOSICON in 2008 and I try to encourage following its good sense wherever I can. The article on the band U2 didn't look any better when it had a little Republic of Ireland in its infobox, and it was a real pain in the arse to see people continually edit war over the flag. It turns out two of the band members were born in England, or something. So Irish editors would put their wee flag, then British editors would replace it with their United Kingdom, then they would argue it out endlessly on the talk page, and so on. It is better not to have a flag at all in many cases because it overemphasises nationality and leads to silly edit wars as a result. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I might raise it at a MoS page if I get round to it. --John (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Things can be even more fraught North of the border. Mercifully, nothing's been flagged up yet at the Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Ulster Banner is a particularly egregious case of a symbol with no official recognition (except a couple of narrow sporting contexts), which is enormously divisive to those who know the history of Ireland. Loads of disadvantages and absolutely nothing to be gained by using it. How many times do you reckon I removed it from that stupid reactions list? --John (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You tell 'em, Johnny boy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

[edit]

Nadolig Llawen

[edit]

Martinevans123Santas Grotto ... sends you warmest wishes for a:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Thank you. --John (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cortinasnme.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cortinasnme.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's that season again...

[edit]
Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ealdgyth. The same to you. --John (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you Gavin. --John (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking...

[edit]

on Monroe Edwards - think we're good for FAC? @Eric Corbett:? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. Eric? --John (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]
 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2016 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Same to you. --John (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]
 Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Montanabw(talk)
Thank you! --John (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]
File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --John (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Merry Christmas

[edit]
Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuletide greetings from me too

[edit]
Good Yule!
Good Yule!


Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter. Yngvadottir (talk)


Bind vs bond

[edit]

Now I can see that the fluoridation thing sends people into a weird zone, so I will let others deal with those edits, but chelation in terms of bonding or binding? Do you really have views on which term is more appropriate there? I would be interested in what kind of bonding you are thinking about, and the reasoning. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dative covalent bond, I think. --John (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But what if one of more of the bonds is an ionic? What if it is a double bond? A pi-bond? There are lots of bond types, and chelation does not distinguish them.
I also found your tendency to revert two of my edits in rapid succession a signal of spite. Disappointing behavior for an administrator. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see chemistry is not your strong point. It isn't everybody's cup of tea. I am also sorry if I hurt your feelings by undoing two bad edits you made to articles on my watchlist. These things happen. Why not join the talk page discussion rather than carry lingering bad feelings about it? --John (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. Thanks for the suggestion. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year !

[edit]

Thanks for your Christmas greeting, John. It was really very much appriciated, especially coming from you. I hope you have had a pleasant Christmas yourself and I wish you a Happy New 2016 (a bit in advance). By the way - your advices last spring were not made in vain. Gradualy they have actually began to reach my mind, I hope... :) So I feel I have quite a lot to thank you for. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure to talk to you again. Have a great New Year when it comes. --John (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also extend my warmest wishes of happiness for the new year to you and your family John. I'm now back, part time at least, from a break; although being in my household over Christmas is far from what most would describe as "taking a break". CassiantoTalk 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cassianto. I can empathise with that. Great to see you back. --John (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Cumberbatch

[edit]

Hi. I went to leave a message on User:XPrintGirl's page and saw that you had given her an award for removing "poorly sourced material" from the article Benedict Cumberbatch. The information in question (about Cumberbatch's past long-term relationship with actress Olivia Poulet, and brief relationship with Anna Jones) is actually backed up by multiple reliable sources, including articles from Radio Times and The Independent. I don't know why XPrintGirl has tried to remove information about Cumberbatch and Poulet's relationship from both their articles, but the claim that it isn't backed up by reliable sources doesn't hold water. As for Anna Jones, her name is reported in the cited Independent article as "Anna Jones," so the claim her name is actually "Anna James" is unverified, and certainly not grounds for deleting brief mention of her from the Cumberbatch article. -OneLittleDragon (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Poulet

[edit]
Take this to WP:BLPN? --John (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for the star! Just a quick note, there have been disruptive edits by user OneLittleDragon in both Cumberbatch's and Poulet's articles. I have made my edits but the user keep reverting and going against Wiki policies.

CUMBERBATCH ARTICLE

  • Removed inconsistent (and non-notable) relationship with Poulet as they include
a.) conflicting reports on various sources about the nature of their relationship (ie longterm, on-off)
b.) unclear time of their relationship
c.) unverified year of break-up (neither parties discussed the matter)
  • Removed (non-notable) relationship with Anna James/Anna Jones as they include
a.) articles which cite a tabloid article
b.) inconsistent naming of the other party
c.) no confirmation on either parties

My main point is, why include women who he may or may not dated for how long in a website which pride itself on being encyclopedic? It also didn't garner significant media attention, or even attention at all (they were only brief mentions on his various profiles).

POULET ARTICLE

  • No confirmation of Poulet's marriage and who she married. OneLittleDragon merely cited an unverified Twitter account.

I hope you can help in avoiding these disruptive editing in both articles! Thank you very much! XPrintGirl (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insert the information on Olivia Poulet's (apparent) recent marriage into her respective article. This is a flat-out lie. In fact, XPrintGirl was the one who inserted it, citing Poulet's Twitter.[87] I merely restored some reliably-sourced information about Poulet's relationship with Cumberbatch deleted by Hullabaloo Wolfawitz[88] in July on grounds I find unfounded. I also formatted some citations in the Olivia Poulet article and moved the "personal life" section below the "career" section, since this seemed to match the formatting of other articles. I will address the other things said by XPrintGirl, but the accusation regarding the Poulet article needed to be addressed immediately. -OneLittleDragon (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Cumberbatch's relationship with Poulet, this Radio Times article and this Independent article both state they met at university, were together twelve years, and split in 2011. XPrintGirl is claiming there are "conflicting reports on various sources about the nature of their relationship (ie longterm, on-off)", but has offered no sources to support this claim. Instead of raising her concerns on the Benedict Cumberbatch talk page, and providing reliable sources to suggest that Cumberbatch and Poulet had an "on-off" releationship or whatever, she has engaged in counterproductive edit warring, removing information from valid sources. Whereas I have done what I could to cite information I added to the article with appropriate sources. -OneLittleDragon (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Anna Jones, this article from the Independent states they dated and broke up in 2012. The Independent is a reliable newspaper and not a "tabloid" as far as I am aware. I have not found a reliable source which gives her name as "Anna James," nor has XPrintGirl provided such a source, despite claiming "inconsistent naming." There is also no guideline stipulating that only "notable" celebrity relationships warrant coverage in articles, at least based on what I have seen. The Taylor Swift article mentions the subject's many short-lived relationships, for instance. -OneLittleDragon (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both. I suggest you continue to discuss this in article talk. Perhaps a note at WP:BLPN would be useful? I always lean very strongly towards non-inclusion unless it can be very reliably sourced. Good luck! --John (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The information concerning Cumberbatch and Poulet's past relationship has been reliably sourced. I have been told not to edit war for trying to prevent the unjustified removal of reliably sourced content, but XPG has received no warning for her repeated unjustified removals of said content. In fact she has received an award. I feel that my hands are tied and I am being offered no tools for solving this problem. I cannot simply restore the verifiable information in the Poulet article because I have been told I will be banned. But I also do not see discussion with XPG having a productive outcome, because 1) her rationale for objecting to coverage of Cumberbatch's and Poulet's relationship is difficult to understand, and 2) it is hard for me to view her edits in good faith in the wake of her blatantly false accusation against me. This is why someone else needs to step in to moderate the situation. I made a request on the third opinion page linked on the dispute resolution page because I don't know what else to do. No one seems willing to help me or look at the sources to confirm they are reliable. -OneLittleDragon (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of this celebrity trivia actually of any remote encyclopedic value? Collect (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's certainly room for debating whether the biographical articles of celebrities ought to cover their relationship histories in detail, but the current state of affairs seems to be that it's acceptable. The Angelina Jolie article has a five-paragraph section about her relationship history. So I don't see why the Cumberbatch article shouldn't be treated the same, provided that the information meets sourcing standards (which it does, as far as I know). -OneLittleDragon (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia is about seeking agreement not making accusations

[edit]

I've sought clarification of the contented point here in case you haven't noticed it. Please try and respond to the point made and hold back on the personal insults ----Snowded TALK 11:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

[edit]

2016

[edit]
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen328, that's very kind of you. --John (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 year of the reader and peace

[edit]
2016
peace bell

Thank you for inspiration and support, with my review, the peace bell by Yunshui, and best wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda. I hope 2016 is a great year for you. --John (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, John!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

John,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thanks. --John (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ |National Geographic: Earliest Known Winery Found in Armenian Cave| http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110111-oldest-wine-press-making-winery-armenia-science-ucla/
  2. ^ |Booze Traveler Season 1 Episode 11 The Armenian Trail 02;| [89].
  3. ^ |National Geographic: Earliest Known Winery Found in Armenian Cave| http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110111-oldest-wine-press-making-winery-armenia-science-ucla/
  4. ^ |Booze Traveler Season 1 Episode 11 The Armenian Trail 02;| [90].
  5. ^ |Booze Traveler Season 1 Episode 11 The Armenian Trail 02;| [91].
  6. ^ |Booze Traveler Season 1 Episode 11 The Armenian Trail 02;| [92].
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John/Archive_2015&oldid=1149837143"