 | It's time to make a stand against the arrogant and incompetent Wikimedia Foundation and its complete disregard for those of us who actually build this encyclopedia. Their salaries are paid on the back of our unpaid work, therefore in line with some others I've decided to withdraw my labour every Monday until things change. And if they don't, I'll be extending the length of my strike. I encourage everyone to join me. |
Hi John! How are you? I was wondering if you can run an SPI on user Lurelearning? There are several odd co-incidents that I think might connect her to user AEMSWB. Please find a short summary below:
- 17:54, 13 August 2014 - User AEMSWB posts on Talk:World Book Encyclopedia. She introduces herself saying that she works for World Book Inc. and she makes several suggestions for the development of the article[1]. Talk:World Book Encyclopedia remains the only article she has ever edited[2].
- 17:27, 23 September 2014 - User AEMSWB deletes her post on the Talk Page that includes her suggestions that she has made in the role of an employee[3].
- 21:50, 23 September 2014 - A new user shows up at World Book Encyclopedia.[4] She has not edited any other article (except for World Book, Inc.)[5], and she immediately starts carrying out the agenda earlier suggested by AEMSWB. The account's very first edit was made at 17:57, 23 September 2014[6], only 30 minutes after AEMSWB removed her post.
I think this is at least worth of checking. Do you think that is possible? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, taking a look at Lurelearning's Talk Page, I think it might be best to assume good faith. Another user gave her a similar notification about using independent sources, where she replied: " I've requested edits on the World Book Encyclopedia page, but did not received any help so I need to try another route. Can you please help?"[7]. This matches with the requested edit done by AEMSWB[8]. I don't really understand why she had to pick up another username though...
- Do you happen to know Cullen328? I am a regular (talk page stalker) there and I think he's an expert in advising newcomers with the use of reliable sources. :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John. Point taken about the simplified phonetic spelling in addition to the IPA, but if you have a swift look at the article talk page (early entries) you'll see some perplexity expressed by non-English readers, and I wonder if perhaps it would be helpful to leave the alternative rendition in. That apart, may we hope for your comments on the article in general at the FAC page? I hope so (it's my first geographical FAC effort and even with the experienced help of Dr Blofeld I am nervous) but quite understand if you are otherwise engaged. Best wishes – Tim riley talk 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, of course. I am working towards that. I think the article looks super. As regards the RESPELL template, I greatly dislike it and I recall the rule is it may not be used except on words one would find on a dictionary. Maybe I will restore it and see what other FAC reviewers think? I intend to finish a light copyedit then note my support. I am perplexed that there is no article for the local railway. --John (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha! --John (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Very pleased you're going to review. Tim riley talk 18:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. How you getting on?? Can you have a look at this draft and if its good to go. Then can you hook it up for me. Reviews are taking ages. Cheers mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks fine. I moved it to the mainspace. --John (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi John. Can you do this one as well.--Discolover18 (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the latest entries of User:Konveyor Belt/CSD log as they are all redirects to the now-deleted Wikipedia:List of banned editors. KonveyorBelt 22:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, your request isn't clear to me. If you are requesting an edit, couldn't you just do it yourself? If it's an admin-only thing, let me know. --John (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Your deletion log of list of banned editors points to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users rather than Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). You might like to restore and re-delete the page so the relevant deletion discussion can be more easily found. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. Thank you. --John (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done that. Thanks for noticing the mistake. --John (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks John! I noticed it whilst deleting some redirects, which is what I think Konveyor Belt was trying to say in his post -- Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again, both of you. --John (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And thank you for making the right decision on that discussion. That page was nothing but a weight around our collective necks and served no useful purpose (especially since it wasn't maintained very well). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
The Admin's Barnstar
|
| Well done at the MfD for the List of banned users. No matter which way that went, someone was going to be unhappy. But the fact that you took the time to review the arguments and weigh their strengths and weaknesses and make a difficult choice shows you to be someone worthy of the mop and deserving of respect. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- A well-deserved barnstar. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --John (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- agree, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to bring to your attention something that popped up on my Watchlist at WP:BLPN: you unblocked this editor (see here) with a 6 month topic ban on cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. They are now in a dispute at John Ashton (public health director) over this person's interactions on twitter with electronic cigarette activists. Given this editor's previous problems with BLPs in the area of e-cigs, I am concerned about their continued presence in this area, and wanted to alert you to their apparent topic ban violation as you were the unblocking admin. Yobol (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- John Ashton is a leftist academic, not an electronic cigarette. Just pointing that out in case you were confused.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Yobol for keeping me in the loop. FergusM1970, this edit is in my view a violation of your topic ban. Please self revert and we will say no more about it. Remember what I said about In respect of your restrictions, please don't be tempted to skirt the boundaries of 1RR or tobacco/ecigarettes. If you're in doubt, don't go there.? This is the sort of thing I meant. Just revert that one please and we can move on. --John (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done!--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot. It's absolutely fine in future if you want to run any planned edits by me if you are in doubt about whether it's a contravention. Your topic ban will expire soon, do you plan to go back to this area? --John (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll do that if I'm at all doubtful in future. As for returning to the area that obviously depends on the state of the article. It's definitely better, but still focused far too much on the claims of opponents rather than on the devices themselves.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. With that edit reverted the article now doesn't make any sense. It looks as if FPH reprimanded Ashton for commenting on the WHO report, rather than for abusing people. I'd suggest removing the reference to the WHO, which isn't actually relevant, and changing it to something like "On 6 September 2014 Ashton used inappropriate and offensive language to refer to members of the public on Twitter. Following this he apologized and took a voluntary leave of absence while the incident was investigated. On 26 September it was announced that he would be returning to work after appropriate steps had been taken." The FPH statement should be a sufficient reference. Would that be OK? It doesn't mention the dreaded e-cigs at all.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to get into discussing the details of the article with you, but I suggest you post your suggestion on the talk page in this case. Please do not add anything else directly to the article regarding this matter, even if it does not directly mention e-cigs. --John (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, no problem.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just noticed your ban included talk pages as well. Never mind. Please just be careful and nice when you post there. I will take a look later on and see if I can suggest a compromise. --John (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being very good and not editing anything even remotely connected with my topic ban, but it's frustrating to take my punishment while QuackGuru, under the protection of Doc James, is blatantly POV pushing and editing disruptively. Just saying.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads-up. I am watching that user and the article. So far I think he is staying just the right side of the line. --John (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then he's treading it VERY finely. I'm seeing a lot of IDHR, misrepresenting sources and on at least one occasion a creative "mistake" that just coincidentally doubled the number of choking deaths caused by children eating mislaid cartridges. I'm not even going into the fact that QG is just a meat puppet of Doc James, who will be along just as soon as QG's latest garbage spree finishes to reimpose his unique worldview on the article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Diffs? --John (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one. The talk page will highlight many more issues. Among other things he's claiming that FAQs are RS while refusing to accept peer-reviewed studies, repeatedly inserting POV wording and fighting to introduce the frankly bizarre "it's not really vapour" argument that some cranks have recently started using.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He's now insisting that the WP:MEDRS rules on primary sources don't apply if the primary source is from CDC or WHO.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked them to stop doing that. --John (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Let me know if you see anything else dodgy from this user or any other at that page. --John (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he's at it again; since you warned him (I think - he's zapped his talk page again so I can't check the time) he added a whole new section drawn exclusively from the Grana review. Other editors are trying to fix it but he's accusing them of OR. The Grana review is being given massive weight despite having been severely criticised and being generally regarded as an outlier of dubious objectivity. As for his arguments about the CDC Notes From the Field being a secondary source, it's BS.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and now he's saying "Claiming e-cigarettes produce vapour is original research". There is no way he's a good-faith editor.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why cant I add a citation needed to London calling? It says "To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an un-cited claim" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitloop11 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you take this one to Talk:The Clash. --John (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm in the right here. If I disagree a band is punk I can add the [citation needed] tag. I'm not denying they were punk. I'm just saying from London Calling onwards they were more than punk. Wanting to add verifiability is not a form of disruption. Also If you plan on blocking me I suggest you remember "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute"--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I say, this is better discussed at article talk, and indeed it has been. I have no intention of blocking you, but if you continue to edit disruptively then it is likely that another admin will. --John (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine I'll bring it up on The Clash Talk Page.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --John (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks from HiLo48 with the remark "Content dispute disguised as a civility complaint." How exactly did the evidence I provided fail to meet the definition of repeated personal attacks?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's take an edit like this one. While it is perhaps suboptimal to have a discussion like this at article talk, in my view this falls way short of the sort of edit that would lead to a block. Quite a few of the diffs you posted were like this, showing the two of you bickering unproductively. Sadly, this happens a lot here. The best thing is to employ the principles of WP:DR. Sometimes I recommend walking away for a while and having a cup of tea or something. I am sorry you did not like my close but I stand by it, unless there are other more egregious examples you can show that you have not yet shown. --John (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- John, is there something else that can be done to resolve the issue at the article in question please? The number of people disagreeing with Gibson's view is continually growing, yet he won't change his opinion. He is now referring to what was effectively an inconclusive visit to the NPOV Noticeboard as proof that he is right. I personally don't want to raise this at another forum on Wikipedia because of all the shit that will inevitably be thrown at me. (I hope you noticed that at AN/I, precisely as I pedicted in my initial post. Will there ever be consequences for the shit throwers, especially when they are Admins?) How can the article be made and maintained as neutral now please?
- And while I'm here. what does one do in a general sense when a query at the NPOV Noticebaord simply doesn't get enough attention before it gets archived? That was, to me, an obvious place to go on the matter in question, but it didn't help at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) John, The fact that you say things like "the two of you bickering unproductively", and appear to be suggesting that I am the one who should be "walking away for a while and having a cup of tea or something" illustrates why I think the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy is written the way it is. Whether uninvolved editors (like yourself, who come into discussions with the best of intentions) consciously mean to or not, they can't help taking in these claims that I'm being disruptive/rude/biased/etc. and factoring it into their take on the situation. This means there will be times when the subjects of such personal attacks, who may in fact be none of these things, risk having their efforts to improve the encyclopedia thwarted by those who are disruptive/rude/biased/etc. Restricting one's remarks to the edit and not the editor ensures this cannot happen, and is, I think, why such emphasis is given to repetition (not just severity) of personal attacks in the aforementioned policy. These completely unsubstantiated claims of HiLo48's that I am an AFL-hating, POV-pushing, disruptive, rude, confrontational, uncooperative editor (which are all by the way utterly untrue as my edit history shows, but who has time to check, right?) were (and still are) appearing an ever-increasing number of times in a remarkably large number of places. I was certain that if I followed the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy by ignoring the first ones, not responding in kind while patiently allowing him to continue, letting him know I disapproved of the personal attacks, providing a link to the policy, eventually asking him to stop, and then finding he didn't, I would no longer have to put up with it. This would not have to be achieved, as you say, by having him blocked. Couldn't he be forced to remove (or redact) the attacks? Couldn't he have at least been warned or reproached in some way(rather than emboldened) so that there could be a promise of no more in the future? I also thought there would be some kind of final warning approach that HiLo48, given his history of (and past blocks for) personal attacks, would be subject to. I couldn't help thinking too that surely the longer a user's record for personal attacks got, the wider the definition of what constitutes a personal attack by them would become. I admit I was a bit ambivalent about where to lodge my report, and maybe it wasn't formatted the right way, but having it described as a "content dispute disguised as a civility complaint" on top of what I'm already being told to endure really seems a bit much.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have now reverted my change at the article from "poached" to "recruited", now very much in line with consensus there, arguing in your Edit summary that "poached" would be more succinct. That's absolutely ridiculous, and your continued edit warring and stubbornness there helps provide part of a response to your missive above. There many more, and in my view worse, ways to be uncivil than the use of naughty words. John, we really need outside help to resolve this please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many behaviours which can disrupt the editing process. These include but are not limited to commenting on editors in inappropriate places, failing to assume good faith and edit-warring. While one is usually not expected to be perfect, and is allowed to get it wrong occasionally, repeating behaviour you have been asked to desist sometimes makes a block necessary. It looks like you have managed to reach a compromise in the article. Am I right? If so, please consider, both of you, how you could have achieved that result with less friction. If not, please indicate what kind of resolution you are looking for.--John (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing GSV has done has been acceptable to me so far. His most recent edit still seemed to want to say something negative about the recruitment of the players. User:Nick Thorne has now made an edit agreeing perfectly with the views of a considerable majority of editors who have commented on the article. Let's hope it stays that way. Nick Thorne wrote as his Edit summary "restore NPOV". That's all I have ever been seeking there. However, the issue still remains. This was all about one editor pushing a POV, one who seemingly doesn't even realise that he was doing so. Our processes have been particularly ineffective in dealing with the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "both of you". If my belief that the source of friction lies 100% in HiLo48's behaviour is a mistaken one, it shouldn't be too hard for you to help me to understand that by providing some diffs that show me contributing to the problem. And no, there appears to be no compromise yet.
- I was actually looking forward to a more detailed response to my previous post, but I suspect you've (probably unwittingly) allowed yourself to be distracted by HiLo48's interjections here (which, by the way, contain the rather serious accusation of edit-warring, without diffs). I think I'm now beginning to understand why interaction bans were invented.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to help. Edits like this are problematic when made once. When made repeatedly, HiLo is right to speak of that as edit-warring. Again, I counsel both of you to knock it off and to learn from your mistakes here. --John (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but I was actually trying to focus on my complaint about personal attacks and everything leading up to that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's impossible meaningfully to separate the issues in that way. Bad behaviour can incite and provoke bad behaviour in others. Don't edit-war, agree things in talk, keep article talk for talking about the article, assume good faith in your opponent, and be prepared to go for a cup of tea if things are getting heated. I am still talking to you both here. --John (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It feels as though I was talking to you, but you're just talking at me. You're obviously quite busy. Fair enough.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm genuinely sorry to have given you (or HiLo) that impression. It can be hurtful when you fall out with someone on Wikipedia. My experience has shown me that it it less hurtful and you have fewer fallings-out if you follow that pattern: Don't edit-war, agree things in talk, keep article talk for talking about the article, assume good faith in your opponent, and be prepared to go for a cup of tea if things are getting heated. Maybe I have focused overmuch on the process and not enough on hurt feelings in responding. The best cure for hurt feelings is to walk away and to genuinely try to see the other person's point of view. I am not a Christian, but "Love your neighbour as your self" is great wisdom indeed. --John (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No apology (or speculation about hurt feelings) necessary. I understand it's time-consuming.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John ! If possible , could You explain if there is a difference between the words "port" and "harbour". (I'm only thinking about the sea and huge lakes, not "airport"). Any answer would be appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly. A port is a place where passengers and cargo can be loaded on and off ships. A harbour is the physical facility within the port where ships can moor while loading and unloading. A port may have several harbours, or may be located within a natural harbour. Make sense? --John (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In Swedish we only have "hamn". Your answer makes sense, and thanks !Boeing720 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:I dream of horses. Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]
Hi John; Yesterday i noticed that your corrections from Friday to the ip at "artificial intelligence" article were not heeded. Could you follow-up with that user and bring back the good version? Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverted and warned. --John (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check this and hook it up if you can. Thanks.--Discolover18 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sorry it took me a while. --John (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How goes it?? Can you do this one as well. Cheers, lol.--Discolover18 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I will have a look. --John (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, nice work. --John (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for your help John. I'm pretty sure that's me done now............for a while at least.--Discolover18 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Simple question really??? Who can give out stars and awards. Is it just moderators? I just wanted to know.--Discolover18 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw no, anybody can. It's on the Wikilove tab. --John (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For intervening on the talk page, it felt like banging my head against a wall, the guy simply wouldn't listen. WCMemail 13:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I know the other user a little and have worked on articles with them. Not sure whether this is a help or a hindrance. Time will tell. So far so good. --John (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lailee Bakhtiar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Mountains in October 2000.<ref>Feb 25, 2000 "Making It Happen: Women and the Culture of Peace" (UNESCO/World Peace www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/2000schedule.htm</ref> She is the daughter of a
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Bracketbot for your vigilance. If any of my talk-page watcher feel like fixing up that article, I would be grateful. --John (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! Before things getting any rougher, can you have a quick look at the latest happenings at Talk:Acupuncture#Restoration of verifiable material. This time very little to read, don't worry :-)
Anyway, comments like "I'll explain this in language that you can understand: Quack quack quack, quack quack quack quack. Quack quack! (Dominus Vobisdu 15:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC))"[9], followed by "I think it is time that quackupuncturists here are reminded forcefully that we edit wikipedia from a mainstream scientific point of view, and crocodile tears about fringe whitewashing from two obviously wp:conflicted editors just wont wash (Roxy the dog™ 15:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC))"[10] hardly seem like WP:CIVIL to me. On the opposite, all of a sudden the atmosphere is getting really hostile at the article again.
In this Article's edit summary by Dominus Vobisdu, the same rhetoric continues again: "Fringe whitewashing". I find this especially harmful for developing the article as editors with such an agressive, uncivil agenda all of a sudden engage in making reverts at the article: no discussion, no addition to the article. By using soft means, perhaps a small administrative word could ease the situation? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left the two editors concerned messages. I am prepared to block if this is repeated. I agree that it is unacceptable. --John (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- John, I think that disruption is not limited with that page. Dominus Vobisdu has been also disrupting Ayurveda and failing to follow Wikipedia:BRD. You can look at the edit history of this article and you would know that it was the long standing content(probably included since article was written) and Dominus Vobisdu has made no policy backed rationale for his edits, neither roxy the dog has. I had brought it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Medicine#MEDRS verification where consensus was established to include these, I don't see anyone who disagreed, although I count about
5 6 people who agreed with my edit. But as usual Dominus is edit warring, wikilawyering and not participating in the discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Domnicus has been also forum shopping(see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ayurveda_and_modern_medical_terminology) Bladesmulti (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look and I agree that this behaviour is unacceptable. As this editor had recently been warned for similar misbehaviour I have blocked them for 48 hours. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. --John (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Roxy the dog seems to be making edits for Dominus_Vobisdu, unlike him, he's not removing the references, but ultimately the English translated terms that Dominus Vobisdu didn't liked. [11] -[12]. Technically that's the same type of edit, Dominus Vobisdu was edit warring for, without consensus. As you are more aware of what to link, even you would know that medical terms are to be linked, at least once on article. Remember that WhatamIdoing, Blueraspberry, Littleoliveoil, and others told Dominus and Roxythedog to don't censor. But Roxy the dog is doing same edit warring [13], making changes without consensus or replying to the discussion that is being made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for last 24 hours and more, but telling me to follow BRD (misleading edit summary), just like Dominus did. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Canvassing even more, and misrepresentation. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's none, and this is not canvassing as he's not being invited to make edits on my behalf. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the messages. I will try to post a more definitive solution in article talk tonight. I would love to get by without blocking anyone else. Let's see what we can do. One thing I would strongly suggest meantime is that you avoid using words like "censor". --John (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks and I was actually redirecting to comments like these[14]. You are correct but I just quoted. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more and more convinced that it isn't incivility allegedly driving editors away, but more likely over zealous mop handling. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that there were women in the oppose group that you joined 2 years ago, but - to my knowledge - not in the support group? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you remind me what this refers to? --John (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, with math, tomorrow ;) - I received a thank-you-click today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John, pleased to make your acquaintance! Nothing personal, but I have reverted some of your edits to Tintin in Tibet, as I did not agree they were an improvement. Believe me, this article has already been copy edited. I kept those that were a definite improvement. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's perfectly ok, nothing personal from my side either. My first thought was that perhaps you are not a native speaker of English, but I see that you are. We all have to work with the talents we have, I suppose, and I think I would rather continue this conversation in article talk than here. Thanks for bringing your actions to my attention. --John (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. Yes, I subjected this article to around twenty native speakers of English who heavily copy edited its grammar; I thought I was quite good at it but I learned a lot from their expertise (as I often do from so many good people here at Wikipedia). I hope you and I get to work together someday! Good to chat with you, have a great one. Prhartcom (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the op-ed about girl ships. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it. --John (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Item 2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen it before, and I am in general a great admirer of MastCell. Thank you for bringing it to my attention again. Is this in relation to my Op-Ed or to something else? --John (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. I'm glad you liked it. --John (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago, you were the 279th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot Gerda, it's a pleasure to work with you. --John (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How goes it? Can you check this for us. Thanks mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work, keep 'em coming! --John (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers mate--Discolover18 (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I would like you to consider proposing/imposing more-or-less the same kinds of constraints at acupuncture as you did at Ayurveda, or perhaps something preliminary. The article has a lot of problems, and a glance at the talk page will show both the good potential (e.g. here) and toxic reality (same section, and passim) that exist there. There is tendentiousness and POV-pushing from both the skeptic and advocate sides.
IIRC, you mentioned at Talk:Ayurveda that user conduct issues should be addressed on other pages. That would be good. Several of the editors at acupuncture have failed to heed that, worst of all myself and QuackGuru, who have a toxic ongoing feud that keeps flaring up. A particularly bad (but sadly, not very unusual) example is this: Talk:Acupuncture#Continued_controversial_changes. It's just nuts. There's a lot of history there.
So there is the dynamic with me and QuackGuru.... and then there is QuackGuru, who has ownership issues (cf. AN thread from Feb). See these results from Wikichecker for acupuncture and chiropractic; QuackGuru has edited each more than the next 20 editors combined. Also compare their respective talk page edits [15][16]; QuackGuru is the only editor with more mainspace than talk space edits. He is not the easiest editor to collaborate with, and that's not just my opinion. He's made a ton of edits, uniquely so, and as such bears significant responsibility for the difficult environment. (Which is not to deny that we all do, and that it's not only about edit count.)
In general, multiple editors have complained that there isn't much room for a reasonable middle ground at the acupuncture article. We need good editors to come and stay, and the right change in the weather could bring that about. Your changes at the Ayurveda article struck me as interesting and different, and in the present climate -- as Bill Murray said in Groundhog Day -- different is good. The only disagreement I had was that I'd prefer 1RR, or at least a 1RR-limited BRD as an exception to 0RR -- and BTW, I think Jytdog, who left the ayurveda article because of 0RR, is the kind of editor who's worth keeping. But maybe you won't want to take this on at all, which is natural; one can only do so much.... Anyway, happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
