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)


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)

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

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)

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

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

Joy Division[edit]

This showed amazing resilience [1] 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)

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)
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)

I Saw You Act More in Sorrow than in Vexation[edit]

Erasmus-of-Rotterdam.JPG 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)

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

Oddfellows[edit]

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

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[2] on 25th February, but the text couldn't be verified by the source.
  2. I rewrote the first paragraph on 8th March[3] 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[4], 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[5], 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}}[6], and the paragraph right below with {{citation needed}}[7]. This got reverted by the third IP editor[8] 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"[9], 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)

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)
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)
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)
Er, what looked dodgy exactly? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (same user as 163.167.125.215).
Sourcing, promotion, and the impression that the three IPs are tag teaming. --John (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
IPAs, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I wish! --John (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

TPSs -[edit]

What should I push to FA status next?

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

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)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

Blue[edit]

Pamje nga Desivojca.jpg

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

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

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 (talkcontribs) 01:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. --John (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
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)

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

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)

Thank you for asking. I have edited the article and will comment at PR. --John (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Not at all, my pleasure. Thank you for asking me. --John (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

Blades[edit]

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

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)

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

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))
[10] this is the violation now. Alexbrn,[11] Ronz[12] and Bullrangifer[13] 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)
  • Thanks for the messages. I am looking at this now. I will be taking some admin action. It will take me an hour or so to decide. --John (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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.[14][15] 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)
  • 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)
  • I may have left one or two comments some time ago, but haven't been following events since then, so was unaware of any of this current situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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).
Thanks! --John (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayurveda&diff=652796436&oldid=652191531 .—Kww(talk) 23:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've advised him to self-revert immediately. -A1candidate 23:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
He made the revert after he threatened to do so [16], which I mentioned in the discussion above. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

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))

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I find your unhelpful attitude in this case frustrating, but not unexpected. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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))

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 (talkcontribs) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
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))
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)

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))

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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]

.

Roxy the Dog[edit]

Roxy the Dog has been harassing other editors, calling them "advocates of acupuncture" [17], and "advocates of Acu and other ALT-MED proponents" [18], and declaring that a particular editor has a COI despite that editor stating he does not have any [19]. Could you please look into this? -A1candidate 10:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

  • 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)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

Irataba[edit]

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

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)

No, but it is unhealthily dependent on primary sources. Are there no better ones? --John (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
  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;| [20].
  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;| [21].
  5. ^ |Booze Traveler Season 1 Episode 11 The Armenian Trail 02;| [22].
  6. ^ |Booze Traveler Season 1 Episode 11 The Armenian Trail 02;| [23].