User talk:John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A Note on threading:

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

  • If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
  • If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:John/Pooh policy)

And now we're forum shopping[edit]

Having failed to get anywhere at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) our persistent editor Pete/Skyring has now taken his argument to a global platform. Please see Talk:Football (word)#Football in Australia and Talk:Football (word)#Sourcing for Australia. The discussions are attracting no attention from anyone but me, but he is editing the article on the basis of what he claims on that Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that as I was pinged. Please don't panic; he is not doing anything wrong per se and is perfectly entitled to ask for sources. I may intervene if I see any of you losing it but for now consider that I am watching, even though I may not comment. Please do ping me again if there is any breach of the agreed restrictions. --John (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The demanding of sources is part of his game. He claims to have provided sources, but hasn't. It really is difficult to find sources that explicitly cover this matter. The reason is that the facts are obvious to all who know what they're talking about on the matter, and nobody bothers to write about it. Hence my reference to WP:BLUE. Pete is pushing a POV and is gaming the rules of Wikipedia. He is simply wrong in his claims of what the truth is here. I cannot separate his actions from his long term desire to simply prove me wrong, on anything. I have been a major impediment to his POV pushing in the past, on this and other issues. I AM assuming bad faith, perhaps unconscious bad faith, but still bad faith. Sorry about that, but I have seen too much of this editor to think otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw you make that point in article talk and I saw Pete's response. I think WP:V comes into play here. If there are no sources for a statement we cannot carry that statement. It might be beneficial now if both you and Pete could back off slightly and let others have their say. It can be intimidating to others to see two people battling it out like you and he are doing. Or find some sources. Finally if you have doubts about your ability to work productively with another editor I would certainly rather you mentioned it to me here as you have done than to take your dispute into article talk. I think you have both started to lose patience with one another and this is another reason to back off. As regards POV, please consider WP:MPOV; everybody has a POV and that is a known fact. It does not bar someone from participating, unless they do so in an unproductive manner. I counsel you both to consider whether you are approaching that point. Have you considered an RfC? --John (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I can step back. You're right about the need for other voices. I've rarely seen an RfC work in situations as complex as the one in question. RfCs attract too many players with nothing more than opinions, and in this case, very loaded ones. I wish the topic wasn't such an emotive one. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Iron–hydrogen alloy[edit]

Could we please have some help at Talk:Iron–hydrogen alloy because we are just going round in circles. I have tried to list this for some sort of mediation but the instructions are so complicated that I don't understand them. Biscuittin (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Tamas has offered to help. Let's see what they can offer before I get involved. --John (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't want to do this but I'm afraid it has become necessary. You gave User:Plasmic Physics a formal warning on 11 August 2014 about editing articles without giving references. He has done it again. He edited Iron hydride on 30 November 2014, without giving a reference, so that it matched the opinion he has been expressing at Talk:Iron–hydrogen alloy. Could you please take appropriate action. Biscuittin (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --John (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Who[edit]

Thanks for getting the audio sorted out, I've spruced up Won't Get Fooled Again a bit today so it has some sourced content (always nice, I guess) and dropped the clip in as well. Could you check over what Mr Stephen's done on the main article? Changing one ISBN format and leaving the rest to not match is surely a violation of the FA criteria (which calls for consistent citations throughout), and being reverted with a summary of "you are wrong" isn't helpful and goes against the spirit of WP:BRD. I don't mind if I am wrong (it happens) but I certainly won't learn anything from back and forth reverts, and FAC is not really a good time for this to be going on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. There are rules for the placing of hyphens in ISBNs, see for example ISBN. If the article is unclear let me know and I'll try and explain them to you. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
ISBN formatting is a mystery to me. I do know that Mr Stephen is one of the good guys like you and (I think) me, who spend a lot of time getting articles right, so I'd be inclined to believe him on this. --John (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a mystery to me too. Mr Stephen does a lot of work to fix up things like this, and about 99.99% of the time his edits are fine, but just occasionally I get confused. Stephen, what I think would help here is to write a page explaining ISBNs (or specifically the required changes) with worked examples, then link off that. User:Giraffedata/comprised of is an excellent way of doing that, all he needs then is an edit summary with that link and people understand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
What a cool page! Thanks for linking it! --John (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I wrote something a while ago. I'll see if I can find it. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi there John, I am aware that you have taken action on QuackGuru's behaviour previously and I am requesting that you take a look at his latest activity at the e-cigarette article. The article was [recently fully protected for one week] to prevent editor feuding. Seemingly in attempt to WP:GAME the system, QuackGuru made over 20 separate edits to the article within hours of it becoming unprotected including this [vast edit]. Some of the edits show blatant disregard for WP:5P, for example:

  • "Tobacco and e-cigarette companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.[1]".

At almost the same time as the preceding partisan edit, QuackGuru [removed the article POV tag], justifying this action by saying that the article had "quietened down" in the last week because it was fully protected.

It would appear to me that QuackGuru knows that there is not likely to be consensus for such edits and they do not care. What's worse is that the quote above, aside from being a gross violation of WP:NPOV, is bordering on WP:OR or at the very least an ultra-partisan interpretation of an already partisan [source] stated in Wikipedia's voice.

It is impossible to discuss such things with QuackGuru, they simply state things such as ["You have not shown what is the issue with any of the text"], generally followed by copious amounts of filibustering. Going on their previous conduct record at this article, I think it would be best if QuackGuru was prevented from editing e-cigarette topics. There has been [recent activity at ANI] regarding QuackGuru that failed to reach a conclusion, but I think that this latest behaviour is sanctionable in its own right.
Levelledout (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Levelledout. I will have a word with the editor in question and see what needs to be done. --John (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The edit in question is sourced to this review article, published in Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world. Having read the article text in question (first full paragraph, page 1982), it seems like a relatively accurate summary of that paragraph. To say that summarizing material from a high quality source is a "blatant disregard for 5P" and is a "gross violation of NPOV" I think reflects poorly on the person accusing QuackGuru here. I should note that there has been a constant campaign by some editors to deprecate or remove high quality sources like this review article or information from the World Health Organization, FDA, etc. due to these sources publishing material negative about electronic cigarettes, this being an obvious example of this behavior. I'd hate to think that an editor in a content dispute with QG is WP:FORUMSHOPping here after getting no support get QG sanctioned at ANI. Yobol (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
How can this be forum shopping if I am discussing completely separate events to the ones that were discussed at ANI? QuackGuru's actions are not restricted to that particular edit and the issue is misuse of a source, not the quality of the source itself.Levelledout (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If ANI can't sanction, I certainly think John would be overreaching in the extreme to do so. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).


FYSA - I've unblocked Uniladmag per an unblock request on his page. As you used the "the username is the only reason for the block" template and he suggested an acceptable alternateive, I figured you'd be fine with it. If I'm mistaken and I've missed something, please fell free to undo my actions. Kuru (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Disregard; he went straight back to promotional editing and did not submit a username request. I've reverted myself. Kuru (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, we tried. Thank you for keeping me informed. --John (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit (again)[edit]

It looks as if there may soon be a sweep of the older FAs, so I thought I'd better get back to work on Quatermass. I've spent much of the evening chasing up dead links and replacing the IMDb links, but there's still some tidying up and checking to do. If you have the time and inclination would you mind just having a read through it now? I'm keen to avoid it having to go through an FAR if at all possible. Eric Corbett 00:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to have a look later today. --John (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I've had a couple more read throughs of this and it looks fine, for whatever my opinion is worth. I think it would certainly survive a FAR. The writing is ok and you have convinced me that the referencing (my main qualm) is ok. MoS compliance seems fine as well. --John (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Binary compounds of hydrogen[edit]

User: Plasmic Physics made a large number of changes to Binary compounds of hydrogen between 24 June 2014 and 5 December 2014. Most of the changes are to background colours in the tables. I don't know whether or not the changes are justified and I don't think any references have been given. Biscuittin (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at Talk:Binary compounds of hydrogen but not since 21 July 2014. Biscuittin (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have recorded my view. --John (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

My ping @you[edit]

Can I assume you saw it and that your response has been made? Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a response should be made and this should include a longer ban for RTD's violation of 1RR. -A1candidate (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. Let me have a look. --John (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Isn't Ayurveda under 1RR at the moment? I am a bit surprised about Roxy the Dog's behaviour: here he reverted the edits made by user Dsvyas, and here the same happens again. Well, the same seems to apply to Dsyvayas as well: [1] and [2]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
John isn't a fool, Jay. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that Roxy. Be assured that I am watching. I am prepared to assume good faith regarding Dsvyas not having been aware of the restriction, which they now are. Roxy's two edits removed two different additions which were themselves added improperly so meh there I suppose, though I think you are sailing close to the wind there and certainly shouldn't make any further reverts. Do we need to look at full protecting the article, do we think? --John (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
So Dsyvayas can revert me, leaving, and I quote John, "two different additions which were themselves added improperly", and I am threatened that I "certainly shouldn't make any further reverts." and have to sit here with the article in what you yourself agree is an improperly arrived at state. C'mon! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
RTD, what I suggest moving forward is that you not make any reverts in cases like this. Instead, when content is added or altered without clear and unambiguous consensus, report it to John or another administrator for action. (John, hope you don't mind my butting in.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in the least, Boris, you said what I would have said. --John (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
But that is the sort of tell tale pettyness that I find so abhorrent that the pov pushers do all the time. There are a couple of examples here in this thread for goodness sake. You don't expect me to agf of people like that surely? I would hate to sink that low. I would much rather expect those imposing ad-hoc behavioural requirements over and above our norms actually enforce them. meh indeed. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
AGF goes both sides. You can't expect others to AGF when you assume bad faith most of the time. -A1candidate (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I am reading your comments with great interest, Roxy the Dog. If you don't assume good faith on all the editors, maybe you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia? Remember WP:5P:

Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are 4,666,449 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss.

Haven't you got a warning for such use of language at Acupuncture? I don't think you are doing yourself a favour with these comments of yours. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I go by the reliable sources when editing articles, rather than making judgements about editors. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The hordes of "POV pushers", "quackupuncturists", and "homeopathasists" would probably disagree about you not making judgements about editors. -A1candidate (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how else to say it, but I go by the reliable sources when editing articles. Isn't that what is required? Regarding the hordes representing ignorance, there are so very many of them. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You go by "reliable" sources such as Quackwatch? It is a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog that has no impact factor and is not indexed in any scientific databases. It is, by all measures, a pseudoscientific source. -A1candidate (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikijaguar's unsolicited 2 cents-There is more to editing Wikipedia than just identifying and going by reliable sources as you say RTD. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and by its very nature requires you to work with other editors toward the goal of building (together) a great encyclopedia. I think the WP:5P and WP:AGF factors are not ones you should disregard. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── John, let me know that what you think about this message, if it is a kind of Wikipedia:ATTACK? User:Roxy the dog is attacking the valid closure on the talk(page) instead of raising his issue with the closure on Wikipedia:AN. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, it's a disappointing edit. I don't think Roxy the dog seriously disputes the close or they would indeed take it to AN. I don't think I'll block over this but I will say that this user is heading towards a topic ban. --John (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Roxy the dog was alerted about those sanctions like 12 months ago. It is good that he passed a whole year and avoided getting into any Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. But still I have alerted him for another 12 months. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That may not have been such a good idea. Let me have a look. --John (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself, son. --John (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

inquiry about what "ce" and "fmt" mean[edit]

Hi there, you made some edits (reverts) to this page here, with the edit summaries of "ce" and "fmt". I don't know what those mean. Could you clarify for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Copy-edit" and "format". --John (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
(stalking) Just to add a little on this, "copy-edit" means "I've changed the structure of prose to make it easier to read, but not changed the meaning" while "format" means "I've changed the presentation of the formatting without changing the overall meaning". I use these summaries as well, because if you do a lot of fixing up articles to try and improve the quality, making little copyedits and reviewing each one as you go seems to be par for the course, and individually documenting each one gets tiresome after a while. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


John, FergusM1970 has now passed his time on the topic ban at electronic cigarettes that you imposed, but has been making unhelpful comments on the talk page such as this, accusing a group of editors of being part of a cabal and unhelpfully personalizing disputes. I was hoping you could talk to them to have them reconsider making such unhelpful comments again. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What's seriously unhelpful is the major WP:OWN issue you, Doc James, Zad and Quack have about that article. It's going to be a litany of scaremongering because that's what you've decided. I make a perfectly reasonable suggestion about describing the rift this issue has caused in the medical and public health communities and you immediately imply that I'm POV-pushing. Oh the irony.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Yobol has been a very disruptive editor at multiple articles and he is currently canvassing for uninvolved editors at electronic cigarettes and shows lots of WP:IDHT behavior at talk pages. -A1candidate (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Phew. Right, where to begin? Fergus1970, that was an unhelpful remark to make. These things are best solved by avoiding personalising issues. Mentioning IDHT is another thing best avoided I think. If another editor seems not to have heard you, it may be that they disagree with you or there may be some other good reason that they have not responded. I may have further advice to give if and when I get time to look at this properly. --John (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I take your point but stand by what I said. There are serious OWN issues at that article. The group in question have even resisted adding more information about electronic cigarettes (i.e. what the article is supposed to be about) in favour of concentrating on the very speculative "health risks" that are proving so controversial.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That may be, but it is always unhelpful to discuss user conduct at an article talk page. If you are unhappy with how things are going I can come over and try to mediate there, but you should make your complaint here, not there. --John (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be great if you could do that. The complaints have been made there numerous times, but ignored.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will. Please don't make any personal comments on other editors or your ideas about their motivations there meantime. Just make dispassionate suggestions for article improvement and suggest sources which back them up, and bring any complaints about editors here. --John (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


This discussion has run its course, unless any passing admin wishes to block User:Parrot of Doom for his rather childish personal attacks. The matter being discussed has been resolved, so we should all try to move on. --John (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

John, I appreciate you're frustrated, and understandably so - but your latest comment to Andy wasn't exactly helpful. The discussion seems to be moving in a sensible direction; let's try not to derail it, eh? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose you have a point. I will strike it if you think it is unhelpful. But nobody should be under any illusion that they can bargain or blackmail us regarding BLP matters. --John (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
John, DO NOT persist in this. I resent your insinuation of "blackmail" in the strongest possible terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I'd rather discuss this here than at the noticeboard. Why would you wish to make preconditions (if that's a nicer word for what you were trying to do) regarding the emerging consensus that a decent secondary source is better than a couple of crappy primary sources, on a BLP article? It seems obvious to me. Oh, and don't shout please, the neighbours may be sleeping. --John (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

John, can I suggest the protection on Nick Griffin is now lifted? I know one person wants me to specify exactly what changes I intended to make (which is briefly what I discussed on WP:BLPN that had a general agreement), but leaving an article locked for six days seems quite unorthodox and starting to look a bit punitive, particularly for editors who've had nothing to do with the conflict. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. As long as we're not going to have any preconditions required by Andy Dingley, or further reverts to restore poorly referenced material from either of the original two warriors. As somebody said at AN/I, it is more important to get a stable result than a quick result. Perhaps if we got a neutral admin to formally close the discussion at BLP/N? --John (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
John, lay off the repeated abuse. Read what I wrote, not what your ego is making up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

With the following observations though: 1) There is consensus here that the two direct quotes would be permissible in Nick Griffin under the sourcing rules. I would remove them from here under UNDUE, as they can be covered in the QT-specific article. 2) Those two quotes are permissible, and I would encourage them, in that QT-specific article. 3) When the QT-specific article is deleted or merged back to Nick Griffin, the two quotes should follow it back here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

is what I am talking about. Without commenting on your "ego" (though I am very interested in Freud), I don't think any involved editor has the right to declare a consensus in a discussion they have participated in, especially where it concerns a change in the wording of one of our most important policies. Neither can any one editor stipulate what will be merged in the event of some hypothetical future merge event. We would be better to go with the current consensus to just replace the two crappy primary sources with one decent secondary one. It is nice when common sense, policy, and consensus all align like this. Can you agree? --John (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually the consensus is that you were wrong to demand the two quotes were removed and wrong to protect the article as you're involved in the dispute you used your tools to prolong. But of course you've chosen to ignore those two results and focus instead on the third discussion which offers weak support to your demands. And don't think I haven't noticed the lies and general bullshit you've been writing about me - you haven't changed one bit. Parrot of Doom 18:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Mmm. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Demands, lies, bullshit. Thank you, that makes your position totally clear. You can't determine a consensus in a discussion you have participated in, especially if you don't understand fundamental principles of BLP. --John (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You're a nasty piece of work John. The only good thing about this debacle is that it's reminded people just what a piece of shit you are. Parrot of Doom 09:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry "losing" this has hurt your feelings so much. Try to learn from it. Adding tabloid sources to a BLP isn't a smart thing to do. --John (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought Ritchie's idea was a good one and said so several days ago. That doesn't change the fact that most people thought you were completely wrong (no matter how much you deny it) and it doesn't change the fact that you're still a smarmy little hypocrite and a bully. It's a shame (for you) that you don't possess the honesty to admit any of this. Leopards don't change their spots. Parrot of Doom 10:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm certainly glad we agree that the solution adopted was a good one. As regards your critique of my character, I will treat it with all the seriousness it deserves. --John (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope that means you will take it seriously, because you ought to. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
We know it's not your fault, John. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

John, do you have a plan for restoring the article to it's normal (unprotected) state? It seems to me there was consensus at BLPN one or both the quotes should go in, and it's not really legit to discount any reasonably established editor who disagrees with your interpretation of BLP. Also, since you can't just full protect the page in a content dispute as an ordinary admin action, you should be logging the action as required by WP:NEWBLPBAN. NE Ent 23:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi John, since it's not currently listed as a discretionary sanction I've removed the full protection (back down to semi). Hope you don't mind. I've alerted some people to the BLP discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Callanecc, that seems fine. Let's hope nobody starts putting crap sources on it again. --John (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I see this "Maybe I should just have blocked you and your co-offender. Maybe next time I will. " as an overt threat by an administrator to mis-use their block powers, as well as already having mis-used their page locking powers, to strong-arm a content dispute that they're already involved in and where the other contributors are already behaving appropriately, per the thread at BLP/N. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you really? Gosh. Takes all sorts. --John (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

John, I have to say that this is not the first example I've seen recently of borderline (or even over the borderline) problematic behavior by you in an administrative capacity. You might want to reflect a bit more on your words and actions. You're a good admin so there's no need for these things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you? That's a shame. I have always reflected on my words and actions, thanks very much. Are you a fan of using tabloid sources to publish negative material on living people? If you are (and this isn't just aimed at you, Short) you may feel absolutely free to leave and start a new project. You could call it Tabloidopedia, perhaps. As long as we have a BLP policy and I have an admin bit I will use the one to enforce the other. If you don't like that, tough titty. If you have any serious criticisms of any specific action I have taken, you may continue to feel welcome to mention specifically what it is you think I have done wrong, and which policy or guideline you think it breaches. Joining in with some vague hand-waving on a thread where a tabloid fan has called me "a nasty piece of work", "a piece of shit", a "smarmy little hypocrite" and a "bully" doesn't fill me with a good impression of your judgement. No offence. --John (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you need good respectable Teutonic sources like Der Speigl. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Lashing out ("if you don't like that, tough titty" and more) at someone attempting to bring up good-faith concerns does not strike me as modeling the kind of behavior that you demand from others. I would only like to say that I attempted to do this because you are a good admin who in my view has wobbled a bit. If I thought you were a bad admin, I'd just stay the hell away to avoid the risk of a retaliatory block and figure you deserved whatever came. I apologize for any offense and will not bring any concerns to your talk page in future. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You didn't "bring up good-faith concerns", you made a vague remark with no content. What was I supposed to do with that? I'll repeat the comment: If you have any serious criticisms of any specific action I have taken, you may continue to feel welcome to mention specifically what it is you think I have done wrong, and which policy or guideline you think it breaches but if this is your communication style, vague innuendo followed by pretended offence, you are certainly also welcome to stay away. --John (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Wikimedia genealogy project[edit]

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to this but I appreciate being asked. --John (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I award you this barnstar as you are already working for so many years and trying to make things better. I have been watching your talk(page) for a while, it is obvious that you serve as an example. Hope to learn a lot from you! Bladesmulti (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very kind of you. --John (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that's really useful. --John (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a case of edit warring?[edit]

Hi John, as an experienced administrator I would like to ask your opinion about an interaction I am having with Ronz on the Kefir page. Please note I am not actually lobbying you for a specific intervention here, but would like to know if I am correct in thinking that this user's behavior is inappropriate with respect to possible edit warring and uncivil comments (at least IMO). First diff here [3] is a reversion of this diff I made yesterday [4]. My reversion prompted a discussion at the Kefir talk page (seen here, which has not ended and did not create consensus for this removal (the consensus reached was that better dictionary sources such as American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, Merriam's, etc. are preferable to the sources Ronz previously preferred such as Memidex and Wiktionary (now removed as he states on the talk page).

However, in that first diff Ronz removed well-sourced information about the possible etymological link of Kefir to the Turkish word "Keyif" from various peer-reviewed academic sources (I have even newer reviews supporting this position from this year) and has failed to adequately explain his reason for removing these sources (and I see no consensus for such a change). Additionally, in that same first diff, I believe his edit summary violates WP:CIVIL as it is clearly a negative comment targeted at me (which I don't appreciate since we are in the middle of a conversation on the talk page). Would you agree that this constitutes edit warring (despite only being one reversion without consensus) and that the edit summary was uncalled for and uncivil? How do you think I should proceed? Thank you in advance for your comments John. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I have been away. That does sound rude. Let me have a proper look at this. --John (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
No need to apologize for the delay. I agree that Ronz's response was rude and I've personally decided to let the issue go (but I would appreciate you still taking a look since this may be indicative of a pattern of behavior on the Ronz's part) in order to prevent the disagreement from escalating and because I have started to grow weary/annoyed and I don't particularly like feeling that way. Thanks John :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts about this issue John? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I read the discussion and looked at the edit summaries. I agree with you that the first summary was unnecessarily rude. I don't see evidence that this is part of a pattern though. If you think otherwise it would be interesting to see. --John (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments John. Do you think his actions constituted edit warring? We certainly didn't get into 3RR territory, but as you know, it isn't necessary to do so for it to be considered edit warring. With respect to whether this is a pattern of behavior, I will do a little investigating and if I find anything of interest, I will be sure to present you with diffs as evidence. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Another act of rude behavior (by a different editor with whom you are familiar) that might interest you [5]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru again[edit]

John, since you seem to be the administrator who deals with QuackGuru on a regular basis, I wanted to ask what I should do about disruptive edits he has been making lately. This is an example where, in one edit, he singlehandedly removed some reviews (only after he tagged them as unreliable, a sneaky way to make their removal look justifiable) then snuck in an old edit (at the end) which he knew I found highly objectionable because he twisted the first line of the abstract, essentially the premise, making it appear as though it was a conclusion from the review. Here is a previous attempt to make a similar edit. And here is the full text of the review where you can see the first line of the abstract. I caught him and brought this up on the talk page showing that he was misleading the reader by quoting a premise as a conclusion. He even had the audacity to say on the talk page he wasn't quoting from the abstract, then when I copied the abstract, word-for-word just to show what he was doing, he didn't respond to the point, but instead accused me of committing a copyright violation! It goes on and on, and if you're interested in any more of it, it's well documented on the acupuncture talk page and in the edit history. The reason I'm coming to you is that I know you understand his unique techniques for disruption. For the past few months, I have noticed how sneaky his disruptive edits are. He makes them so complicated that they're undetectable simply because it gives any administrator a headache to understand what he is doing. I'm convinced he would have been banned a long time ago if he wasn't so good at concealing his bad behavior behind a convoluted editing maze, then hiding every instance where another editor catches the violations and addresses them on QuackGuru's talk page. If he didn't delete pretty much everything on his talk page, other admins would easily see him the long pattern of similar behavior and not be so quick to give him the benefit of the doubt. Any admin would probably have to spend 2 hours going through one series of his edits just to understand what he's doing. The thing is, any editor who makes a sound edit that conflicts with QG's POV doesn't just get reverted. That would be easy disruption to detect. What he does is so much more insidious, he twists words and does whatever he can to "neutralize" the citation, knowing nobody is going to go back and read the full text, and if they did he could always play dumb. Anyway, I know you're familiar with his behavior which is why I'm coming to you. Do you have any advice on how I should proceed with QuackGuru? His ownership issues, combative battleground behavior and covert disruptive tactics are out of control. LesVegas (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As an observer uninvolved in editing the acupuncture page (aside from some past history of minor word choices, grammar, etc.), I have to agree that Quackguru has had a very long track history of troublesome behavior and I have to wonder why he or she has been allowed to proceed in such a manner for so long. I doubt most other Wikipedia editors would have been given as many chances as Quackguru and avoided permanent blocking with so many repeat offenses. That's just my 2 cents. I have had unpleasant interactions with Quackguru in the past as well (although only a couple), but it does feel like Quackguru has received special treatment and that's inappropriate, especially when QG's behavior seems to be disruptive to numerous editors (good and bad ones alike). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Addendum-To be a bit more balanced in my assessment of QG, I won't say that QG doesn't have his or her moments (he or she certainly does some good work on important articles), but in my opinion this does not excuse this user's prolonged pattern of disruptive conduct. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
According to User Brangifer, however (emphasis added):

The same actions can be interpreted very differently, and rightly so, so we don't have "the same rules for all editors." Contrary to your statement above ("... all the editors must be treated equally, with same rights and under the same rules."), we don't do that.

I wonder the same. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is awful news. I really thought QG was trying to clean up his act. We may now need to look at a topic ban. Is it just acupuncture that is the problem or is it wider than that? --John (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's awful news that you take reports like this at face value: I note that every quote that QG is accused of problematically removing was problematic in itself. How can a quote from a source about the effectiveness of acupuncture for headaches leave out a sentence in the source like "However, in studies that compared actual acupuncture with simulated acupuncture, researchers found that the differences between the two treatments may have been due to chance."? The later discussion of fascial connections is being used to provide a false sense of secure underpinning for acupuncture as well, and is certainly providing undue weight for a dubious conclusion. This isn't a QG issue: it's an issue of TCM proponents attempting to distort the acupuncture article again. As usual, the best solution is to block the group of editors that are attempting to distort the article, and then see if QG's behaviour will improve. QG is an editor with some behavioural problems that is attempting to improve the encyclopedia. LesVegas is an editor that is attempting to damage the encyclopedia, and knows that scrupulously correct behaviour combined with subtle distortion of sources will help him prevail.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Quote from Kww to QuackGuru[6]:

You know that of any of the admins on this site, I'm one of the most sympathetic to your cause. I can also tell you that you are being your own worst enemy again. Bringing three people that you are in a conflict with to ANI and SPI simultaneously without some very good evidence connecting the three accounts looks more like a temper tantrum than a serious effort to use our noticeboards properly.

Can I ask you to talk with me before you bring things like this to noticeboards? I can help you see where you are being unconvincing and where you are making leaps of faith. The woowoo articles have always attracted problematic editors, so no single report is going to fix the world. You can bring reports so badly that no one listens and nothing gets fixed, though, and that seems to be the path you are going down.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

...or maybe Kww, you can just back off? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Feel free to present your evidence for "TCM proponents attempting to distort the acupuncture article again"; other than showing that you are declaring for a "side" here, your present statement doesn't help me much. Here's a clue; QG ought to know very well by now that making these bold edits in defence of what he thinks the consensus is or ought to be, has become problematic. Make your arguments in article talk, refer to sources, and avoid imputing bad motives to others. I think this whole area needs a bit of a sweep to remove those who are unable to behave properly. I don't see any other way forwards, do you? --John (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussions at Talk:Acupuncture go nowhere because there are not very many good faith editors to deal with: we are left people like LesVegas and Jayaguru-Shishya. I certainly think there's a way forward, and blocking or topic-banning QG is not it. Topic-banning LesVegas and Jayaguru-Shishya would be far less damaging. I'm sorry that you see this as an issue of sides and that you refuse to see your obligations under the pseudoscience arbitration clearly: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus". Do you seriously doubt that LesVegas, Jayaguru-Shishya, A1Candidate, and all the other editors that flock to your talk page for comfort and support are cherry-picking sources in such a way as to bend our articles away from mainstream scientific consensus and towards a pro-TCM/pro-alternative-medicine POV? That they obstruct and filibuster every discussion that attempts to bring related articles back into line?—Kww(talk) 22:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it pretty questionable from an involved admin to label someone as "non-good faith editor" to another admin. Especially since you didn't even provide any diff which would support this claim of yours. I am sorry Kww, but I see your actions not so convincing for someone who is entitled to work as an administrator. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not see this as a matter of sides, but it is becoming apparent that you do from your posts here. I am very well aware of the pseudoscience arbcom, and I also try to observe WP:AGF and see those who maintain the WP:BATTLE as the real problem. Are you part of the problem here, or part of the solution? I am beginning to wonder. The real solution is to involve more neutral editors, and to clip the wings of those who are unable to behave properly. It would be a real shame to lose QG, or any good-faith contributors, but those of us who wish to solve the problem will nevertheless have to accept this fact. Make your arguments in article talk, refer to sources, and avoid imputing bad motives to others. See what you can do to help. --John (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Kww, please give the exact diffs. Please explain what's the exact problem. Don't just wonder on the level of general accusations without any basis. I remember what my professor told us once: "Substance, substance, substance!" Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Kww, listen, I know you don't like my point-of-view, and you do like QuackGuru's. But to say that I am attempting to damage the encyclopedia is just wrong. I have truly tried my very best from the outset to only improve the encyclopedia as best as I can see to do so, and only edit within the rules. I know you don't agree with some of my points of view, but I challenge you to find any substantiation that I have been disruptive or have vandalized or have any behavioral issues whatsoever. If you can find one instance, one edit, that is as bad as what QuackGuru does on a near-constant basis, or even like he did here and both you and John agree that I am a problem and that any of my edits rival QG's many, then I will request that John topic ban both myself and QuackGuru. I won't protest it at all: if a respected and uninvolved admin truly believes I am as much of a danger to this topic area as QG is, or any of the other problematic editors there, who am I to argue? I have tried editing to the best of my ability and don't think I have ever crossed the line like QG, but if I have, I invite whatever punishment John sees fit. LesVegas (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's see: an inconclusive study in a dubious journal, where the strongest conclusion is that the evidence "supports" that fascias "may be" the substrate of a representation? The only issue I have with QG's edit is that he didn't delete the reference entirely as being without merit. He's trying to leave material in to satisfy people, and directly quoted the study in question with his changes.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the joy that comes from trying to engage these editors on Talk:Acupuncture, John: an infinite cycle of defense for removing material from the lead when that material denigrates acupuncture, as well as a continual cycle of defense for any study, no matter how poor the source, that makes acupuncture look to have a stronger foundation. I'm sorry that you see me as part of the problem, but that feeling is certainly mutual. Does QG make rapid edits that don't take LesVegas's, Jayaguru-Shiya, and A1Candidate's POV into account? Certainly he does, and that's because he really isn't supposed to take their view into account. No one else gets to get in there and edit because of the flare-ups QG provokes. That's a problem. But the other problem is the near certainty that any other editor will also wind up provoking reverts from the pro-altmed/pro-TCM editors, and will wind up in exactly the same precarious position. Keeping the article from drifting that way is a tireless and thankless task. Admins that actually monitor the content of the edits wind up painted as "involved" and paralyzed. Unfortunately, that leaves you free to block QG and completely uninclined to block the editors that are the root of the problem, because you don't see promoting pseudoscience as a behavioural problem as long as it is done by well-behaved editors that don't blatantly lie about the content of their sources, while you do see ignoring such editors as a problem. That then encourages them to push harder, which causes QG to react even more badly, and is ultimately bad for us all.
The only reason the "battle" persists is because the warriors are allowed to continue. Don't you think it's a bit strange that your talk page is full of adherents to TCM, Ayurveda, acupuncture, and similar fringe topics? Don't you think it's because they see you as a tool for their cause?—Kww(talk) 02:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Kww, the journal meets all of MEDRS requirements as far as I can tell. From the way I understand the policies, if the citation was removed as you say QG should've done, that would also be disruptive behavior. But, for the sake of my point, I'm glad that you clearly see that source essentially said that "the evidence 'supports' that fascia 'may be' what the Chinese were talking about in relationship to meridians." Because that's exactly what my edit stated! I cited what the source said, following the rules as I understand them to be. Then QuackGuru removed it, claiming OR, and inserted this deception, that it has "not been resolved" Kww, do you think this is okay? And for the record, I think I first noticed John as a good administrator when he got onto a couple of editors, Roxy the Dog and Dominus Vobisdu, who were calling another editor a quackupuncturist and being grossly uncivil. As I'm sure you know, plenty of other admins frequent that talk page, but John was the only one who did something about it. He reprimanded and punished those who were breaking the rules, instead of turning a blind eye to it in the name of whatever POV some here believe is sacrosanct. I do not believe John shares any of my views on acupuncture, but I do believe he shares my belief that editors can have any viewpoint and can edit the encyclopedia with enthusiasm, just as long as these editors don't violate Wikipedia's rules. I can't speak for everybody else, but that's why I am coming to him. LesVegas (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Quoting Kww:

Does QG make rapid edits that don't take LesVegas's, Jayaguru-Shiya, and A1Candidate's POV into account?

Dear Kww, what's my POV? Please explain. I am pretty sure we all would like to hear this. I have repeatedly emphasized that what we are interested in are reliable sources. I have repeatedly told, that please follow MEDRS, and there will be no problem. Is there something you disagree with it? Please Kww, do explain us in full extent. This is not a rhetorical question. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Above, a comment by John includes "those who maintain the WP:BATTLE as the real problem". That comment overlooks the fundamental issue, namely that fringe topics always attract more enthusiasts than neutral editors. Naturally there will be "lack of consensus" because most editors give up trying to defend such articles, and the talk page becomes a contest between fans of the topic and fans of the encyclopedia. A single admin should not take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury, and executioner in fringe areas, and, assuming there is no exceptional outburst, a general editor should not be sanctioned without a discussion at WP:ANI or WP:AE. Any investigation of contributors should include LesVegas (talk · contribs) who focuses on acupuncture (one third of all edits since starting last July) and who claims that NPOV forbids stating that TCM is largely pseudoscience, apparently on the basis that science should be balanced with the views of devotees. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How very interesting for you to share your views with me like this. Everybody thinks they are neutral of course. I was amused by the idea of a "general editor"; is this a rank? --John (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
By "general editor" I mean one who is not focused on using Wikipedia to push a point of view—a general editor has a general interest in a range of topics. People should not be using this talk page as a substitute for WP:AE in relation to WP:ARBPS matters. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm so happy that you find this discussion amusing, John. Tell me: when you gauge consensus in a discussion, do you count the number of people involved, or do you weigh each argument in accordance with Wikipedia policies?—Kww(talk) 14:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What I firstly want to say is I feel this discussion was actually censored by User:QuackGuru. The reason made me thought like this is from his talk page edition [7]. Now his talk page is like this [8]. It seems right after the User:LesVegas opening this discussion here, QuackGuru started to collect something to accuse you, User:John. QuackGuru collected these problem to accuse you just 20 hours after LesVegas. I guess he was waiting for you to report him. While you report him, he will accuse you in the same time with the evidences he collected. I guess my comments here was also censored. Hence, I guess he may change his talk page later. Then I guess I need to introduce myself. Previously I never involved any debate about the topic about Acupuncture but this week I really have a debate related it. Hence, I will not say I am an User who uninvolved. Maybe it is really bad for me to censor User QG's edition but during the debate I feel I was censored by him which made me feel really uncomfortable. The way I found your page is from QG's talk page. He wrote lots about you made me easy to find you. Before this, I did not involve any discussion with you. My debate with him is in Talk:Acupuncture#Old reference#Weight violation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#NCCAM as a MEDRS?. My debate with him is I word-for-word cited some sentences from NCCAM but he said it was MEDRS violation. It made me really confused because NCCAM is part of National Institutes of Health while MEDRS [MEDRS]claimed source from NIH is compliant. However, this debate is unrelated this topic. I just introduce myself.

I loosely checked something. At first, for article Acupuncture, based on the page statistic [9], Based on [10], User:QuackGuru is top the editor in this article who made more 1000 editions while User:LesVegas only made 27 editions which is even not in top 10. To say someone out of top 10 is more enthusiasts than the top 1 editor sounds really unconceivable for me. Then the page statistic for Acupuncture shows article Acupuncture ranks 7497 out of 4,671,886 articles in English wiki.Based on this figure, it is really hard to say it is a fringe topic. It seems User:QuackGuru focused on alternative medicine topic. I check the statistic page of many alternative medicine Chiropractic, talk:Chiropractic,German acupuncture trials TCM,Traditional African medicine Chiropractic controversy and criticism, User:QuackGuru is the top 2 editor in all of these page and mostly is the top 1. I guess he will start to edit Ayurveda soon. The only exception is article Electronic cigarette which QG is the top 1 editor. In this article, it seems he has a huge conflict with User:AlbinoFerret. comments from Miracle dream 20:09, 17 December 2014‎

QG is a very, um, enthusiastic, editor in the field of pseudoscience, and in most cases that I have ever been aware of he has been taking actions in accord with our best practices as per policies and guidelines, even though at times his means of personal expression and presentation leave a lot to be desired. And it is unfortunate that some of our other leading editors in the field of pseudoscience have been occupied by professional academic concerns of late. What we really need for this topic, and, honestly, many or most of the pages relating to pseudoscience, is administrators or other senior editors competent enough to know the nature of the published terrain in the field and willing to take action when such is appropriate. Unfortunately, cloning debunkers doesn't seem within the WMF budget anytime soon. I don't know who pushed first in this particular instance, but I have a feeling that maybe the best way to proceed might be ArbCom. Unfortunately. They don't always get everything right according to the content, as their focus is by definition on behavior, but it might be that the only way to really "resolve" this content is to seek some sort of AE action of some sort. But if that were to happen, it would be best if someone uninvolved in the topic or prior discussion were to review the situation to present an unbiased report to AE or ArbCom. Unfortunately, I know that I myself am not qualified to do that. My field is more history and astronomy, not medicine. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to note that I have seen all these messages and find them very interesting. Miracle dream, I did notice what User:QuackGuru was doing. Up to a point it is up to them what they do with their user space and presumably QG is going to do something with this. Interestingly, if you look in the history QG blanks some very good advice from another administrator regarding this matter. I'd note that QG has not been fully accurate or diligent in some of the "evidence" that they have posted there, and I'll be happy to enlarge on that if necessary. Johnuniq, thank you for that. Of course everyone has the right to examine another editor's contributions and gauge how wide or narrow their interests in the project are. On the other hand, having a narrow interest isn't prohibited and I still believe AGF, while not a suicide pact, has to apply first and foremost, along with our other core values. (Of course, by this logic, wouldn't QG qualify, per Miracle dream's comments, as just the sort of editor you are talking about?) User:John Carter, thank you too for your measured contribution. Unfortunately I will have even less time to give to these matters in the next week or so, due to matters relating to real life, children and Christmas. I will be checking my messages and making the occasional comment for the next week or so. I still welcome this conversation taking place here, and I assure everyone that this will all be sorted out one way or the other in the next month or so. There is no deadline. I wish everyone here an early compliments of the season. --John (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


John, I'm engaged in discussion with Miesianiacal at Talk:Governor-General of Australia and Talk:Head of state. We're running into difficulties. Is there some handy counselling or mediation service available? I don't want him to feel uncomfortable or bullied, and if my experience with HiLo48 is any guide, I'm probably inadvertently doing something to make things worse. I'd like to stay on track and within wikipolicy, but I'm about as emotionally intelligent as a block of Lego and someone with wider eyes might help things. --Pete (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If I may, John. It's my recommendation that Skyring stay away from articles/discussions that relate to or concern the Australian head of state dispute. It's never a good idea to repeatedly push the same thing on Wikipedia, no matter what the motive is. The project frowns on such behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Good Day has a good idea here, Pete. For now, can you step back from this? --John (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course. I'll leave it for now, and I'll trust GoodDay and Mies to do likewise. We may leave the matter for comment by other editors. However, this is not the central thrust of my concern, which is to find ways for us to work usefully together on areas of joint interest. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No Skyring. You're the problem here. You must stay away. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Regretfully, John. Skyring won't or can't let go, unconditionally :( GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Nor can you, GoodDay. Use your head - trying to win a Wikipedia battle by forcing anybody with an opposing view out of the discussion is against the spirit of consensus we embrace here. You "win" by persuading others, through facts and discussion. --Pete (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You've asked John for help & he's agreed with my advice. However, your apparent inability to accept that advice unconditionally, speaks volumes. We can't help you, if you refuse to help yourself :( GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
PS- Though I disagree with the way HiLo48 handled himself, when he had his blowout, I understand his frustrations with you. Forgive, but there's just something annoying about you, Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, GoodDay. I'd like to be less annoying. I don't want to annoy people to the point where they feel they cannot participate in discussion, or they feel they are being bullied. I'm looking for suggestions.
I guess I could tell those I disagree with not to participate in discussion any more, but they might get upset, so that wouldn't be constructive. --Pete (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Regrettably, I believe you're heading towards a topic-ban or worst. Being currently involved in (atleast) seven disputes (Head of State, Governor-General of Australia, Order of precedence, Nuclear power phase-out, 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, Barassi line & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)), isn't promising. Please remember, that I tried to help you. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, John. If I appear to be loosing my temper with Skyring, it's because I am. Best, I walk away. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

L'enfer, c'est les autres, n'est-ce pas? When good people disagree, it is always painful for others. Try to back off and accept your differences for a few days, would be my advice. --John (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Improve Article[edit]

Hi! I am new to wikipedia and would like to contribute. How do I improve the article - Siddharth Shetty? It would be great if you could make the changes, so that I may understand what exactly is required. I have tried to edit/improve it multiple times but they keep flagging the article.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohansoodH22 (talkcontribs) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you were asking here, but I made some minor adjustments. --John (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Jordanhill School[edit]

Hi, you seem to have removed a large part of the Jordanhill School article but I can't see any reasons listed for your actions. For example, the section about the schools drama history dating back to 1945 has been completely wiped. Evening Times (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:V. --John (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The information came from a document on the schools official site which outlined its history. I would have said that was a valid source for that information. Document can be found here Evening Times (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources are not the best. Is there a better source for this? --John (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

Wall of Shame activities[edit]

Greetings John! I am sorry to find out that you've been targeted at user QuackGuru's Talk Page. I think he removing even his signature[11] indicates quite clearly that he never even intended his post as something to be discussed as his Talk Page. Moreover, it highly resembles as a piece of "wall of shame" activity described by WP:HUSH:

User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues.

I read the statements he made, and I have quite a differing view with most of them. For example, the issues he is bringing up with respect to his Talk Page, there is hardly any disagreement about his disruptive activities. I got the impression that he'd be quite desperate to label you as "involved admin" since he feels uncomfortable that someone has paid attention to his behaviour here at Wikipedia.

Anyway, I have brought his "wall of shame" activities to your attention even earlier (as well as Kww), and I I feel sad seeing that he is returning to his old ways even despite of everything.

My editing time during the Christmas season is very limited, but I'd like to give you my best wishes for the upcoming Christmas holidays! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya I appreciate your comment. I think I talked about this a couple of items up. Try not to worry about this, and enjoy your holidays too. --John (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very kind. You too. --John (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


I will be travelling from tomorrow until early January. I will check in occasionally and may make a few edits if the opportunity arises, but I will be mostly away for a couple of weeks. Very best regards to all who have made 2014 such a pleasant year. --John (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus[edit]

Thank you, same to you! --John (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)