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)

Featured articles[edit]

Hi John. How you getting on mucker?? I was wondering how to get articles 'featured' on the main page?? Does Wiki just pick ones or can articles be requested. Obviously I would like one of mine to be featured, lol. Is this possible?--Discolover18 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that simple. See WP:FAC. Your article first has to be peer reviewed by some pretty hard-assed reviewers. --John (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

Thank you[edit]

BoNM - Poland Hires.png The Poland Barnstar of National Merit
Please accept this barnstar as a token of my gratitude for your help with the article on Warsaw Uprising (1794). Instead of wasting your time on describing what's wrong with the article, you simply stepped forward and fixed it. Such good work should not go unnoticed. //Halibutt 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Dziękuję, że jest dobry. --John (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh my, I gave you the barnstar before I noticed what you did to my other pet project, the article on Battle of Warsaw (1831). Since another barnstar could be boring, here's a chapel for you. In other words - thanks mate. It must've taken ages to read through the article :) //Halibutt 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a very great pleasure to read and tinker with two such interesting articles. I learned a lot. I look forward eagerly to working with you on these in the future, and on helping you get them through FAC in the fullness of time. --John (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I took the liberty of fixing this sentence: [1] to clarify that we are talking about two names of the same conflict. I hope this sounds better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi John. I was wondering if you could check this draft. I've never done an article like this before. Also, I couldn't get the photo to fit in the infobox. Maybe it's something I'm doing wrong or the infobox is gubbed in some way. Also, is the gallery too much?? Anyway if the (small) article is good, can you move it into main space for us.--Discolover18 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking. --John (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I've moved it to the mainspace. I did in the end think the gallery was unnecessary so I removed it. The infobox image worked ok for me. Nice work, mucker! --John (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't the greatest article, however, cheers for your help john.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


User:QuackGuru was told about zero revert rule on Ayurveda.[2] Due to his edit warring [3] [4], one user needed to open an Rfc,(see Talk:Ayurveda#Should_this_article_be_categorized_as_.22pseudoscience.22.3F) after the apparent agreement on Rfc,(although it is still on going) he is still repeating the same edits[5]. Page needs to be protected. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

His forum shopping[6] is also becoming disruptive. A full fledged discussion was recently made on this board, and still remains there. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, on two occasions QG added sourced material and it was Bladesmulti who reverted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris Adding just anything is not enough, you need to establish some agreement. On talk page of the article, there is still no agreement to add any of these edits. John has told that any kind of misconduct on this page should be reported to him, you can also view archives and search quackguru and ayurveda. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought John's No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism meant there were to be no reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious WP:VANDALISM. But perhaps I am misreading.
With regard to QG's post to a community noticeboard, note John also said Discussions may be referred to central noticeboards like WP:NPOVN or to WP:RFC, in fact I encourage this. Perhaps he meant only those two noticeboards and not WP:FTN, or perhaps I am again misreading.
I do agree that there's misconduct on that page, from many parties. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
On just any page, per Wikipedia:BRD, if edits have been reverted at least 3 times, by 2 or more editors, he should not add them back. John had added - Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand. Last time, when FTN was still opened, he was repeating same question on 3 pages, [7] [8] [9](same as [10]), today he posted on FTN [11] which is of course misuse of that noticeboard. May have been better if he had posted it on relevant wikiprojects. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
QuackGuru found to be misrepresenting a citation on lead. Read [12] [13] Bladesmulti (talk)
  • I have blocked Quackguru one week and Bladesmulti 48 hours, both for disruptive editing at Ayurveda. Lest anyone read anything into the different block lengths, these merely reflect the differing block logs of the two users and do not imply any difference in degree of misbehaviour. I will be happy to unblock either user if they undertake to respect normal editing practices at that article, as was discussed at article talk recently. Any admin watching here is specifically invited to pitch in here if they have any opinions about these blocks, or if they think this requires review at AN/I. QuackGuru, it is common sense in a situation like this to await firm consensus in talk before making controversial additions to the article, as we have previously discussed. This is even more true when there is an ongoing RfC at article talk. Bladesmulti, you reverted not once but twice while pointing out to the other user the 0RR I had requested at the article. Even without 0RR, reverting during a content dispute when the addition was non-vandalistic was disruptive. --John (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
MrBill3 has violated copyrights on his sandbox[14] and Talk:Ayurveda.[15] He was aware of copyright infringement policy and he had warned others before.[16] - [17] Bladesmulti (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You had told that there should be no name calling, per #2 (Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward) yet, Roxy the dog claims that those people who agreed with the restrictions "are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority"[18] Bladesmulti (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
As an observation, those people who have agreed with the restrictions are those who are pushing the "pro-Ayurveda", position, whether or not they are fringe-pushers. That suggests problems with your approach. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And they are not pushing the pro-Ayurveda position. So what now? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I didn't notice these posts. Let me have a look. --John (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bladesmulti, I have blocked Roxy the dog 24 hours. These comments were unacceptable. --John (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi John. Is it still taking ages for reviews. If it is, can you hook this one up for us. It's only small. Cheers mucker.--Discolover18 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Discolover18. For the first time I find I have a qualm over one of your proposed articles. Is the park truly notable by Wikipedia's standards if the only coverage is from the organisation which runs the park? Would it be better perhaps to write an article on Thomas Shanks (engineer), with some information about the modern park which bears his name? We could have Thomas Shanks Park as a redirect to the engineer article. There are not that many sources out there but I found one or two, which may make that a more profitable way forward, especially if you can find more. What do you think? --John (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
And here is an interesting book hit. I think this might be the way forward. Let me know what you think. --John (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Your right I think. Seems fairly interesting. I will need to try that one later. In work at the minute, so limited internet access. Thanks again though John.--Discolover18 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

R U Professional ?[edit]

Hey John,

So I know you're professional so I'm asking your help as a professional to help professionally copy edit the article R U Professional?

But seriously, at the suggestion of Ian Rose from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1, I enlisted your help copy editing Fuck (film), and you did such a great job I'd love it if you could take a look at "R U Professional"?

It's a WP:GA article that's been through several prior stages of review including AFD, DYK, GA, and Peer Review, and I'd appreciate help in furthering along the quality improvement process.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. --John (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Just let me know when you're doing with the copy edits pass through? — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I should get a chance tonight. --John (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay thanks, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I took a first pass. It looks good. I will have more tinkering to do I expect. Are you thinking of going to FAC with it? --John (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks great so far. Yes, I was thinking of going to FAC. I had a request up at WP:GOCE but I'm debating removing that when you're doing with your copy editing. Let me know what you think about that, — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, will do. --John (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay the editor from WP:GOCE is done, so let me know when you're doing as well and I should be all set. :) — Cirt (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

John, any updates? :) — Cirt (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I will try to have a look today or tomorrow. --John (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay thanks! :) — Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to finish the copy edit pass? — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I have done as much as I can do on that article. --John (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay great, thank you very much !!! — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


How goes it John sir?? I've been working on this draft, can you let us know what you think and move it if it's good. Nice one mate, cheers.--Discolover18 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I will have a look later tonight. --John (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Cool, cool.--Discolover18 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I managed to do that. Nice article. --John (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with all your edits mate, cheers.--Discolover18 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]


Guess what, he's back. Rodericksilly (talk)

I blocked again. --John (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John. You have new messages at Adyoo3's talk page.
Message added 06:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do you mind taking on the question on the bottom, or do you want me to do it? I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your imposition of editing restrictions.. The thread is Ayurveda. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gosh. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with your conduct in this issue, from your apparent inability to read the full text of the restriction, to your POINTy abuse of your protection right, to your thoroughly weak summing up at AN/I, to your laughable suggestion that I should apologise to an edit-warrior for blocking them, to the fact that you had to go to a drama board at all, rather than just ask nicely like any normal person would. Weren't you desysopped for a while? Don't bother to reply here, I will dig it out for myself. If not perhaps you should be. Please feel free to ping me here if you are ever being desysopped again; other than that feel free to keep your shenanigans off my page. --John (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

William of Wrotham again..[edit]

I know I asked earlier and then did nothing. It's been a wild year here outside wikiworld, but it seems that things are calming down a bit. Think you and any TPSs could look him over, for grammar, and any missing context? I'm thinking Mil-hist A-class then FAC. I've also got a very interesting guy to write up ... forger, slave-trader and general all around scoundrel! Not a bishop though... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I will be happy to have a look. I always enjoy working on your articles. --John (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I remember this one now. It's only a couple of months since I last looked it over. It's as good as I can make it grammar and prose-wise, but that doesn't mean one of my many talk page watchers couldn't help out and improve it further. Anybody? --John (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda - At your request[edit]

This has run its course, and there is no prejudice about other requests in the future in relation to this matter. --John (talk) 21:52, 13 November 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.

Since you requested a response here, here it is.

Please lift the 0RR restriction from Ayurveda. Whatever it's intent, it's failed because editors simply will not work under the restrictions, and our repeated requests for discussions on those restrictions went unanswered. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In what way has it failed? Editors who are not able to edit without calling other editors names, without reverting blindly, and without agreeing important changes at a controversial page, are not an asset, and would be blocked in any case for their behaviour. Calling it 0RR merely makes it easier to explain and enforce. In practice there have been no 0RR blocks at all, and I regard this as a success, so while I take your comment on board, I have to hold off agreeing with it in the absence of any evidence. --John (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There have been two blocks which you, John, imposed, and almost straight away rescinded. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And? --John (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And? And? It is obvious isn't it. I was pointing out your dishonesty when you said that there had been no 0RR blocks at all. I couldn't let that deception slide by unremarked. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Dishonesty? Deception? I am sorry if you are still angry about your recent block. You acknowledged that I explained adequately why you were blocked, and no reviewing admin saw fit to lift the block. You have now served your block and it is time for introspection. I encourage you to continue to self-reflect with a view to improving your behaviour so you can avoid being blocked again. The two previous blocks you mention were discussed just above, in the section #Ayurveda. Neither was for 0RR, so it is true to say that no 0RR blocks have been issued. I encourage you to apologise for your misunderstanding, which I accept was an honest one, for the sake of your own self-esteem. Please be aware that there is no bitterness on my part about your name-calling, but do be aware that you will be blocked again if you disrupt again at Talk:Ayurveda. --John (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I made no such acknowledgement at all. Please re-read the section more carefully. I have finished my introspection, but I urge you to heed the criticism and questioning about your motives and behaviour you have had from fellow admins and other editors over the last 24 hours. We expect far better of admins than you have demonstrated recently. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Mmm. You did actually but ok. I will take your comments with all the seriousness they deserve. I do again encourage you to continue your growth as an editor, but perhaps here and now will not be the best. I will close this section for now as I have answered all your questions. --John (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@John: I made a simple request about the reliability of a source at Ayurveda, and I was immediately accused of being disruptive by user Roxy the Dog.[19] After all his warnings and sanctions, I doubt if this user is going to change his course of behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, he answered to me by saying: "It was explained very clearly by Dominus Vobisdu in the comment directly below this one", and "Read it, and stop being disruptive please. Thanks." Here is the explanation by Dominus Vobisdu that he was pertaining to and advised me to read: "And that just ain't gonna happen because most real physicians and scientists would vomit at the mere thought.". I wonder, how WP:CIVIL is that? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It certainly isn't very civil but I suppose this editor is annoyed at having just been blocked so we will cut him some slack this time. --John (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
What evidence do you require that editors will not work on it, beyond the multiple statements already made?
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not prevent it. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
If a consensus of uninvolved admins thinks there is a better way forward I will be happy to look at that. Other than that I stand by what I said at 17:54. Consider the possibility that if you think it is important to be able to call other editors names, and revert their work without discussion, you may be part of the problem. --John (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Diffs please if you believe those comments apply to me. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I stand by what I said at 17:54. Consider the possibility that if you think it is important to be able to call other editors names, and revert their work without discussion, you may be part of the problem. --John (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith that somehow your comments apply to someone other than myself, though the lack of diffs makes the claims questionable. Given QG was involved, I wouldn't be surprised though.
0RR doesn't address problems with name calling.
If all you care about is stopping the reverts, then 0RR is one possible solution.
If you want editors to discuss matters and form consensus, then the imposition of 0RR has been a failure.
So again, are we here to improve the encyclopedia or not?
Given that the article falls under WP:AE, there are many other possible solutions, all that involve getting others involved. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I stand by what I said at 17:54. Consider the possibility that if you think it is important to be able to call other editors names, and revert their work without discussion, you may be part of the problem. --John (talk) 18:47, 13 November 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.


I fixed your heading, and corrected your misunderstanding. --John (talk) 06:46, 14 November 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.

Hi John, would you please explain who was the target of the personal attack for which you blocked User:Roxy the dog ? Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The block is fully explained at the blocked user's page. Is your header an accusation? If so, I would be interested to see the evidence you have for that accusation. --John (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I've looked at the blocked user's talk page, and it is still not clear whom you feel was the target of the personal attack for which you blocked. Could you clarify, please? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The block is fully explained at the blocked user's page. Is your header an accusation? If so, I would be interested to see the evidence you have for that accusation.--John (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will give you a couple of days to see if you have anything more after further reflection. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no point, I won't have anything to add after a couple of days. I stand fully by my block, for the reasons I explained to the blocked user. Your question is a false one, akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" I did not block for a personal attack directed to a specific user, but for the harassment embodied in the edit for which the user was blocked, following a general warning at article talk and a specific warning at the user's talk page. I note that you have not explained your accusatory header, nor have you modified it to a more neutral or descriptive one. Let me advise you that this sort of hostile behaviour does not promote harmonious working. It is therefore likely that if you continue in this vein, I may reserve the right to take further measures, most likely politely asking you to stay off my talk page. Or you could just change it and say sorry, if as I suspect you have no reason to consider me involved in the area and this was just rhetoric. Your call, of course. --John (talk) 23:48, 12 November 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.

Ayurveda restrictions[edit]

I think the consensus at WP:ANI#Ayurveda is pretty clear that your WP:0RR restriction is unworkable for this article. Do you wish to undertake putting the notice on the talk page voiding the restriction yourself?—Kww(talk) 22:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? I haven't been watching. I will take a look myself later and see what I think. --John (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Kww for bringing this to my attention. It seems there is a serious and concerted effort going on there, see my recent post to the discussion. In the circumstances I may well withdraw entirely from the area, though I also may consider undertaking a similar set of sanctions under ArbCom enforcement. We shall see. In the meantime, pending clarification, it would be well to consider my restriction as still active. --John (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't have that choice, User:John. The question is whether you accept the courtesy of being permitted to withdraw them yourself, or whether someone else will have to undertake the step of publicly overriding you. The consensus is clear: the restrictions you have placed are both unworkable and harmful.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree, and I have raised a potentially more serious question in the discussion you refer to. Please read it before you comment further on the matter. --John (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Your concerns have validity, but that is unrelated to the fact that no one is in favor of your 0RR restriction. It baffles me as to what support you believe you have for it.—Kww(talk) 00:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
An article in a permanent state of edit-warring should either be fully locked or placed under 0RR restriction. -A1candidate (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with A1candidate here. As we know, Wikipedia is not a democracy. When it comes to discussion, it is clearly stated that: "...editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanction." (WP:TALKDONTREVERT)
As it is said,

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
That's true, and how I tend to look at things. The problem here is that we have some editors with behavioural problems (predominantly on one side of the dispute) and a group of other editors arguing for low-quality edits that would tend to make our treatment of Ayruveda unreasonably favourably and could even mislead readers into believing it had some factual merit. It's hard to supervise the article in a way that both discourages the bad behaviour and the poor editing. In general, if I have to choose between discouraging false content and discouraging poor behaviour, I'll tends towards discouraging the inclusion of false content.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll decline to get into a discussion about the philosophical merits of what constitutes "false content" on an article like this, even though I am tempted; I have History and Philosophy of Science on my Chemistry degree so the appetite is there but it would not be proper. Suffice it to say that I get the nuances of this area. I think I know what bad behaviour is though. It consists of edit-warring and name-calling, and I would prefer it if folk at articles like this could engage in civilised debate about the sources and the due weight of the sources, without recourse to these bad editing practices. --John (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
There are hardly 4 issues with the article. About 2/4 proposal have faced no objections. Only 2 of the other proposals have. Like I had said on AN/I that we can probably solve these problems in a single day, if others are really willing to contribute. I am sure after that we won't need any other sanctions and article can be brought back to its pre-18 October mode. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I would definitely prefer it as well, John. The problem is how to discourage bad behaviour without simultaneously encouraging editors that would make pseudoscience appear to have a factual foundation. I have never found a way to do that, and it's apparent from the results that you haven't found one either.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to hear I have your support. These things can take time and patience is required. If this isn't fixed by next Easter I will be disappointed. --John (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that you recognize that while I support your goal, I think your techniques are making the problem worse, not better.—Kww(talk) 17:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Really? Yet you "have never found a way to do that" either. Perhaps you should watch and learn. --John (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Please enlighten me as to the part of the plan that will ensure that edits promoting pseudoscience are never retained. That's the part of this effort that you don't even seem to acknowledge as necessary. You seem intent on controlling the behaviour of a group of highly frustated editors, but don't seem to have any intention of acknowledging the source of that frustration: people inserting support for pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Kww, can you find me a diff where you found people inserting support for pseudoscience and can you describe how source misrepresentation or pseudo historical revisionism could be justified? Even when it was asked to provide the relevant citations discussing AV as pseudoscience, and nothing was done. Sanctions were placed because of disruptive editing, including the removal the longstanding editions with the false reasoning like "it has no source"(though it had) and lack of participation on talk pages or wikiproject, what dominus vobisdu was doing. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ayurveda as (as I stated there) I'm thinking the 0RR is an arbcom discretionary sanction? If that's correct, you should log it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_page-level_sanctions NE Ent 23:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. See also Talk:Ayurveda#Reviewing_the_restrictions. --John (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I've been watching this from the sidelines for a while. I admire your goal of trying to return the article to normal editing, and I'm glad that somebody is taking the time to tackle this problem. While I don't know all the details of your plan, I tend to concur with what others have said about 0RR being too harsh. In my opinion it puts the article in a position where it is more likely to be destabilized (the WP:STATUSQUO revision is no longer favored), creates unnecessary hoops for editors to jump through, and scares away the moderate editors (those who are least invested) who are the very people we want to be watching/editing the article. Is there any way I could convince you to modify the restrictions to be 1RR instead of 0RR? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned at the drama board on 13 November and then again on article talk on 14 November I accept that the 0RR is unpopular, even with some people whose opinions I respect as neutral, so I am willing to compromise. The question is how we prevent well-meaning people from making blind reverts rather than discussing content. The "comment on content, not contributors" line is easier to understand and this will remain in place. Thanks for your interest, and it would be great to see you along there helping to maintain editor behaviour. As in most disputes, editors on both sides believe they are right. --John (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The result of the pseudoscience arbitration was that we are supposed to favour people representing actual science. If your definition of "neutrality" is that you won't take steps to prevent people that favour various forms of pseudoscience from inserting statements that portray their perspective as factual into articles, you are doing a serious disservice to us all. Reverting statements that portray Ayurveda, acupuncture, faith healing, homeopathy, and similar material as being supported by science is behaviour you should be encouraging and supporting, not discouraging. Discouraging rudeness about it is fine, but you shouldn't be taking the stance that this is some form of unsettled dispute. The root problem is people that support pseudosciences. The secondary problem is that people that are weary of removing it have gotten rude and snippy in the process. —Kww(talk) 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • @John, indeed, there is a lot of WP:MPOV on both sides. I'm glad you're willing to consider a compromise. I agree the "comment on content" rule is just fine and should stay. I think the next step should be to switch the 0RR to a 1RR, or enforced WP:BRD as some have suggested at WP:AN. I remember a couple years ago leading up the US Presidential election when User:TParis was enforcing something like that...there was an effective 1RR on the Paul Ryan article, so basically people could revert a bold edit, but if that turned into a revert war (reverting the revert without discussion/consensus) than the editors participating in the war would get a "final warning" and then some sort of topic ban for the next infraction. The "final warning" scared away a couple of the less-invested editors, but not so many as this 0RR seems to have done. Would you perhaps consider something along those lines? I have a couple more ideas, but I'm not quite ready to share those yet. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I remember a 1RR on Paul Ryan. It could have happened but I have a terrible memory. I do recall one on Ayn Rand, though. It worked splendidly. It is effectively a WP:BRD. Someone once pointed out a small difference between BRD and 1RR, I can't recall what it was, but the effect was minute.--v/r - TP 06:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
          • My worry with 1RR is that we can have tag-team edit-warring. Which is why I chose 0RR in the first place. I am not entirely convinced that 0RR is as bad as some people are suggesting, but I will accede to requests to relax it, just so long as the warriors do not take that as permission to restart hostilities. Does either of you have a wording to suggest? --John (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at User talk:QuackGuru[edit]

You were previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. You agreed. Now you have resotred comments after I deleted them.[20][21] Do you want to block me again because I am telling you again to not do that? QuackGuru (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's truly hilarious QuackGuru and I genuinely appreciate your effort to give me a laugh. Do you mind if I quote this on my user page? --John (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In all seriousness QG, you are exhibiting some pretty problematic behaviour right here. Misusing ArbCom notices like that is not too clever. Deleting messages off your talk page without replying to them is hostile behaviour. I will never block you for insulting me or other misbehaviour here at my talk page, but others may. I will be keeping an eye on your edits and you may wish to be extra careful around the areas we both know you have problems with. I was lenient and let you off for time served the last time; I may not be so lenient the next time. Remember, don't edit-war, discuss in talk and wait for consensus to form before making controversial changes, and do not make personal remarks about editors or groups of editors on article talk pages. You have been warned. --John (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog block[edit]

No mistake was made. The editor has served the block, which he acknowledged the reasons for. I think the editor knows I would repeat the block if the behaviour was repeated. This is how blocks work. --John (talk) 06:44, 14 November 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.

This does not look like a good block. I think it takes an unusually thin skin to be offended by Roxy the dog's remarks. I think you should undo this. This is exactly the kind of thing that could indeed get you in front of Arbcon, so I'd get out in front of it by correcting your mistake. Msnicki (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA carefully -A1candidate (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with the guidelines. Consider what they ask at WP:BEFOREBLOCK. I don't think this was satisfied. Roxy the dog is an experienced editor and deserved both some leeway and some coaching rather blocking. Msnicki (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
RTD has engaged in very distateful threats and attempts to intimidate such as:
RTD has also repeatedly resorted to name-calling and insults such as:
He has been warned not to engage in personal attacks but continues to do so repeatedly. I think an indefinite ban might be the most appropriate for now because I don't see any "leeway" for blatant and repeated offences. -A1candidate (talk) 7:44 pm, 13 November 2014, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
I recommend a thicker skin. Msnicki (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I recommend you read WP:NPA again and respect the guidelines of Wikipedia -A1candidate (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Roxy the dog has also called others a fringe editor/s,[22]-[23] and more recently fringe pusher whoever agreed with the restrictions of John. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
A "warning" five months is not a warning that counts today under WP:BEFOREBLOCK. The rest of these complaints are just so, so petty, one has to wonder how someone with a skin so thin as to be bothered by this even survives on the internet. Stuff about dead horses and boomerangs isn't a personal attack. Heck, we have essays on this stuff (e.g., WP:STICK and WP:BOOMERANG) that people reference all the time. And while calling someone a hypocrite is a little unkind, I just don't think it rises to the level of a blockable offense. I'll say again, I think you seriously need some thicker skin if this is all it takes to get under it. Msnicki (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no point in issuing repeated warning if the editor refuses to change his behavior. RTD has repeatedly engaged in a wide range of personal attacks that include name-calling ("Is your real name Dullman?") and insults ("quackupuncturists") as well as attempts to physically intimidate ("Watch out for the boomerang catching you on the back of the neck.") There is absolutely no excuse for such behavior. Also, please stop accusing me of having a "thin" skin. I feel personally insulted by such a comment and I request that you remove or strike it off immediately, Thank you. -A1candidate (talk) 06:34, 14 November 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.


Hi John, according to this demiurge1000's conduct on your talk is harassment. (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Arguably that's true. Administrators need to have a thick skin, and bluster is often an effective tactic so who can blame User:Demiurge1000 for trying it once. So long as it doesn't happen again, we'll call it quits. --John (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Here we go again. Demiurge1000 makes yet another threat, the third one, if you're to count this one. (talk)

Sorry, accidentally edited a closed section[edit]

Hi John! Sorry, I got confused while glancing through the diffs and got editing the section you already closed! Really, that wasn't my intention. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. --John (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, John. I've been trying to understand your reasoning for this block. My best guess so far is that Roxy the dog used the phrase "fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority" in this edit, and that you interpreted that as name calling in defiance of your editing restrictions here. Was that your reasoning? [I previously asked this question at the user page of Roxy the dog. But maybe this is a better place to ask it.] Cardamon (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I said four days ago there. --John (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

Copyeditng of Constitution of May 3, 1791[edit]

In reference to the request from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4 (June that year), I wonder if you would have more time/will to look at this article? I would like to resubmit to FAC, but I am afraid the deputy director will veto it again unless you or Eric c/e it (since those are two names he mentioned, and c/e by what is at that point about half a dozen of other editors was not good enough for him...). I'd appreciate your assistance in this matter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look, maybe later today. --John (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Piotrus, I have had an initial look and I think it will need a few nips and tucks. I am getting too tired to look at it tonight, but there is every chance I can start work in the next day or two. I apologise for starting to copyedit it a few months ago and then seemingly not finishing the job. I know the FAC was archived but honestly I should still have finished it. So this one is under warranty, as it were. Thanks for asking me. --John (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It will be good to bring this saga to a triumphant end :) (I've been trying to get this Featured for almost 10 years :D) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon[edit]

Stop undoing my edits to the Nicola Sturgeon article. I included the reference to her middle name "Ferguson" in the section of the article dealing with her birth, rather than after her name at the top of the article, as that would be untidy looking etc. DO NOT REMOVE THAT AGAIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Any addition to any article has to be verifiable to proper sources. An addition to an article on a living person has an even stronger need to be verifiable. --John (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice please[edit]

I'm sure you'd rather not hear about this topic ever again, but we have a couple of editors trying to start the dramas about naming of football codes in Australia all over again. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#More edit wars, where we are told "we're going to revisit the matter with some solid facts and editors who didn't participate in that flawed process". It's less than eight month since that earlier process concluded, with what I thought was an understanding that the ruling would hold for a much longer period than that.

The edit warring referred to in the title of that thread was, in fact, by a new editor who the above editor happens to agree with. You can see the new editor's views in several threads at User talk:Lajamibr. Some very inflammatory comments are already being made. Lots of accusations of bias and POV pushing levelled at me (and by implication at you). I have tried to settle things by referring back to the consensus you helped us achieve, to no avail.

It's only fair to mention that I, and the editor who wrote the above italicised text, have only very recently had an I-Ban between us lifted.

For obvious reasons, I'm seeking help and guidance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I then just had this posted on my Talk page. It is so full of false assumptions and insults that I felt it safer to simply delete it without argument. Can anything be done to stop this editor's silliness? HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Just remembered. I had already deleted from my Talk page an allegation from this editor that I had breached WP:3RR. I hadn't. He is already guilty of harassment and personal attacks. I don't want this to escalate. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I was certain we discussed somehow locking that consensus in place for a couple of years, but I can't find that anywhere now. Another discussion now would really be quite disruptive. The tone of the comments addressed at me is pretty troubling already. And nothing has changed since the earlier decision. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 3, but it only relates to the article Soccer in Australia, for which any further discussion of naming is postponed until next August. The more general field of naming in relation to this sport in Australia may be revisited at any time by any editor. It may not be edit-warred over though, and I would have blocked for that were it still ongoing. As it seems to have settled down I won't this time. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. --John (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

Hi John. If you have a minute, could you look in at Talk: The Beatles Boxed Set#Article name change? Following the discussion there (which started with a page move in July), there have been a couple of relevant page moves between 02:28 and 03:07 today. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look. Are you looking for a third opinion (editor) or administrative action there? --John (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A third opinion; administrative action isn't appropriate, since these guys aren't blatently edit warring yet. Please read the discussion, and you'll find that there is no reason to move the article since it is currently not inappropriately nor incorrectly titled. Radiopathy •talk• 11:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Administrative action, I guess. The reason for the change in July from The Beatles Box Set to The Beatles Boxed Set was apparently to use the "correct term". This wasn't correct per the official title of the set, it was "correct" per the same editor's insistence that the term "box set" is "just wrong". The page move in July was challenged at Talk: The Beatles Boxed Set, but the editor came up with nothing to support the change; they asked for print/book sources over AllMusic, they got them. It's the same situation since I came to the Talk page a few days ago. Nothing supports the idea that "Boxed" should appear in this article title – it should never have been changed in July.
Just recently, GoingBatty changed it back to "… Box Set"; it was then changed again to "Boxed", straightaway, apparently because there was no consensus. Not only was there indeed consensus for "Box" (at least, if I understand "consensus" correctly – GoingBatty and I agreed on the same course of action), but there was certainly no consensus at all for the July page move. So when it comes to who's "blatently edit warring" (or isn't), I'd say Radiopathy's already there, having changed the title of an article with no sources to back up the move. JG66 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Radiopathy, is that true? --John (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. These guys are part of the "the Beatles" contingent; they're involved in a pointy page move discussion over a benign issue for no reason other than I was on the opposing side of the "the Beatles" discussion. I've had other problems with JG reverting changes of mine which were verified by reliable sources, simply out of spite. When I mentioned this at the move discussion yesterday, suddenly, after the discussion sat dormant four months, it was decided that reliable sources favour "box set" and the move was made. No one was able to show where the article was innapropriately or incorrectly titled. Radiopathy •talk• 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that this previous disagreement is motivating those you are having the dispute with? What do the reliable sources in fact say? It's good practice to keep different kinds of dispute separate. You should not personalise content disputes and you should not hold content disagreements against people, who may be otherwise good people. --John (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is all completely false. I was fiercely anti "the Beatles". Besides, to say that whichever side of the fence I was on (The/the Beatles) would motivate my thoughts regarding an album title, that's ludicrous.
The only time I can think of when Radiopathy's actually provided a source was regarding the word "orientated", which I'd reverted to "oriented" at an album article. (I since reverted my own change, acknowledging that "orientated" was correct in BritEng.)
I don't know if in their mind, "simply out of spite" applies to when I've reverted Radiopathy's changes from "box set" to "boxed set" at an album article I had nominated for GA at the time, and at an album article I'd expanded for GA (although Yeepsi took that nom), and another GA. It led to a charming exchange on my talk page. As linked to above, there had been a move request at Talk:Box set; Radiopathy's proposal (to re-title that article as "Boxed set") was denied, convincingly. Yet they continued (and continue) to change mentions of "box set" to "boxed set" at various articles, stating it's the "correct term", even though: a) "box set" is the standard term used in the music industry, in retail, in the media, and b) it was obvious from that Talk:Box set discussion that the majority of participants were anti-"boxed set" – which one would imagine might be reflective of the wider community, at least of the editors who work on music articles. I'm just going into detail on this because, a) I don't believe what's been said about me is warranted at all, and b) I can't help thinking the "Box set -> Boxed set" issue (also in July) is relevant to this Beatles album title being changed.
But trying to get back on track: "When I mentioned this at the move discussion yesterday, suddenly, after the discussion sat dormant four months, it was decided that reliable sources favour "box set" and the move was made." I don't know what that means exactly – four months ago, it was decided (i.e. shown) that sources favoured The Beatles Box Set. The move was "suddenly" made because Radiopathy had provided nothing to support "Boxed" and, quite honestly, was acting as if it was an affront that they might be expected to have a source to support renaming an album article. "No one was able to show where the article was innapropriately or incorrectly titled" … Well, GoingBatty had, and then I did – we've provided sources that give the title as it was before the page move in July.
I agree with those two messages below (posted while I've been deliberating over this): keep content discussion together on the article talk page. I just wanted to answer some of the things said above first, rather than bringing any baggage over there. JG66 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @John, JG66, Radiopathy: I have responded at Talk: The Beatles Boxed Set#Article name change because I prefer to keep the conversation in one place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talkcontribs)
I absolutely encourage you all to continue the content discussion at the article talk page. User:JG66 asked me to take a look at user conduct. I am beginning to form an opinion about that, but I will wait until User:Radiopathy has had a chance to respond to my points above before I make my recommendations. --John (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
As 24 hours have now passed since I pinged User:Radiopathy without comment I am going to assume that they are withdrawing their proposal. User:JG66, I think this matter is now resolved. --John (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI - Radiopathy did reply at Talk: The Beatles Boxed Set#Article name change. GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, John. And (just to be clear) you still feel the same way after Radiopathy's reply at the album talk page? JG66 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any evidence that the title should be the way Radiopathy wants it to be, I think there is consensus in the talk to move the article back. --John (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi John. Just wanted to say a thank-you for your help with this matter. Best, JG66 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Not a problem. That's what they pay me the big bucks for! --John (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail[edit]

Hi John,

(There's probably already a thread similar to this somewhere in your archives, but I'm crap at searching archives, so yeah).
I was reading this page. I totally concur with you about the Daily Mail, it's among the least reliable of sources; I was wondering if there's an easy way to see which articles use it as a reference, specifically BLPs. A big job I know, but I'd like to expunge it from BLPs in favour of better sources. Apologies again if this is going over old ground for you! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is among the worst sources it is possible to have for BLPs. I do not know of any way to search for it in BLPs. I certainly remove it from BLPs except where it is used as a source for something utterly unremarkable and I encourage everyone to do the same. --John (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Shame, well I guess I'll just remove it as and when I see it then. :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have time and energy to replace it with a better source that is obviously the best way to go. Failing that, I just remove material that is sourced only to tabloids. It does not belong on Wikipedia at all and certainly not on a BLP. --John (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)couldn't resist chipping in here. I heartily endorse Johns comments re the Daily Fail. It is an awful rag. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
We're all in agreement there. Yeah, better sourcing or removal will be my approach too. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dylanfromthenorth, is this what you're looking for? (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A bit unrefined, but yeah I can work with that, thanks! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, --John (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)