User talk:John

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)

Click to show archived versions of this talk page

User talk:John/Archive 2006 User talk:John/Archive 2007 User talk:John/Archive 2008 User talk:John/Archive 2009 User talk:John/Archive 2010 User talk:John/Archive 2011 User talk:John/Archive 2012 User talk:John/Archive 2013 User talk:John/Archive 2014 User talk:John/Archive 2015 User talk:John/Archive 2016 User talk:John/Archive 2017 User talk:John/Archive 2018 User talk:John/Archive 2018-2022

Ayurveda The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I see that you fully protected Ayurveda indefinitely. That is an extraordinary remedy that was likely justified at the time. Two things have changed since then. First, ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been imposed on Complementary and alternative medicine, which should provide a way to deal with disruptive editors (either pushing fringe content such as the effectiveness of CAM, or personally attacking editors who push fringe content). Second, as a side effect of the ArbCom OccultZone case, editors who appeared to be good-faith but tendentious editors were banned as sock-puppets associated with User:OccultZone. (I call them associated because we don't know which of them is the puppet-master. OccultZone is treated as puppet-master but was not the oldest account. In any case, there has been a sock cleanout.) Would it be possible to downgrade the article to semi-protected for a while to see if a combination of ArbCom discretionary sanctions and the banning of sockpuppets has brought the edit-warring down to a manageable level? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the message. Your suggestion sounds like a reasonable one. I will be away for the weekend but I should be able to give this a proper look on Sunday evening. --John (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC) On reflection, I have decided to grant this request. I will change the protection to semi. All previous injunctions will remain in place; edit-warring (broadly construed) will remain prohibited, and all major changes must be agreed in talk before being enacted. Any name-calling, however mild will also earn a block. I hope these measures will lead to a return to normal editing in time. --John (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC) So a return to the same sanctions as before? Hmmm. Any reason to believe it will be more successful in shielding the article from pseudoscience advocacy now than it was before?—Kww(talk) 22:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Not a return as they were never lifted. Hmmm. One's optimism or otherwise in predicting the future depends on the faith one has in the abilities of one's colleagues to behave properly. You, as an editor involved in this dispute, have the power to help make proper editing a possibility in the future. All you and others have to do is to behave as we are all always supposed to behave; I hope you are up to it. If you, or anybody else, feels they are too invested in an area to edit it dispassionately, you, or they, are completely free to leave it and edit elsewhere. --John (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC) No, because my involvement in the topic area prevents me from blocking disruptive editors on sight, as I would in other areas. I don't consider pseudoscience advocates to be my colleagues, and I am convinced that they will constantly misbehave. Nothing about finding out that one was socking to that extent diminishes my pessimism in that regard, nor does your general failure to recognize pseudoscience advocacy as the root of the problem lessen my concern.—Kww(talk) 23:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Right. That's pretty much what I thought you thought. I can only recommend rereading my last sentence. --John (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I think it's a shame that you volunteered to administer an encyclopedia and then view taking necessary steps to administer it as a problem. Someone editing ayurveda in an effort to portray it as a legitimate medical system is no different from someone that insists the earth is 6000 years old: it may be that they legitimately believe it, but efforts to portray that belief as fact are disruption, pure and simple.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Your opinion has been noted before and it has now been noted again. --John (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Now, if you would simply correct your behaviour, many of our problems would be resolved. Don't act as some kind of vague, capricious threat over editors that are attempting to correct problems while providing comfort to those that are creating them.—Kww(talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Troublesome IP activity at Field (physics) John, one (or possibly more than one) IP has been, in my opinion, making some unhelpful edits at Field (physics). This includes: 1. Removing material that, while not perfect, at least includes citations to textbooks and articles by notable physicists), then, replacing it with material that is not cited and, as far as I can tell, unconventional. As a result, the lead, right now, has no citations at all! 2. Editing other IP's comments on Talk:Field (physics), seemingly to change the record on the dialogue that has developed there. This might be an example of the same user editing his/her previous comments but under different IPs, I can't tell, of course. 3. There has possibly also been a violation (or violations) of the 3RR rule. I have reverted many of the IPs edits (though not all of them), and I have encourage the editor to work responsively at Talk:Field (physics). I would say, however, that his/her response has not been productive. Another editor, @Maschen, has also been involved. The IPs in question are: 24.130.26.146 50.197.189.126 2601:9:4781:6600:544f:6cdd:2f51:bcf7 2602:306:ce2f:6990:f418:da9f:274b:4195 I'm not sure if I should be asking for this, but I would favor blocking these IP addresses and putting protection on Field (physics). Thank you, 18:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I am away for the weekend but I promise to look properly on Sunday evening. John (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC) John, after sleeping on this, I've decided that I'm going to abandon my involvement with Field (physics). In my opinion, the IP editor there doesn't understand how Wiki works, does not understand what is expected for a Wiki article, nor does he/she understand how to work with other editors. What else is new? These problems might persist there for a while, since Field (physics) is, I now recognize, a "low traffic article". If the IP was working on a more prominent article, there would be lots of other editors around to keep things in place. I am not, however, going to bother with this in this case. So, I just wanted you to know. When you get back from your break, one less thing to worry about. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for both your messages. I will try to look at this tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC) The IP now has an account: Crosleybendix. Yet another editor: Epipelagic has now weighed in. Might be interesting, I don't know, I'm trying to practice restraint. Weirdness at Modern physics as well. These are articles that should be better than they are. It might sort itself out. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I've warned the named account. Please let me know if this recurs. --John (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC) {{unblock|reason=I am not "war"ing anyone. John has removed one side of a dispute by silencing me & editing his talk page, leaving only one person's opinion/complaint intact. If the guy is so passionate about his philosophy, it is better for him to take it up with me, rather than running to pops to have me censored & requested his blurbs be left locked on the page. I am happy to debate him, he seems like a nice enough guy. However, he was more or less unresponsive on the talk page until I was removed. The page appears stale & smothered for months if not years. How can anyone expect progress with such a lopsided & inefficient editorial process? [[User:Crosleybendix|Crosleybendix]] ([[User talk:Crosleybendix#top|talk]]) 02:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)}} I understand the points you are making and I encourage you to continue to raise them in talk when you are next able to do so. It was unwise to continue the edit war after I warned you so you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. --John (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I don't know who you are or why defending myself in a forum should be considered unwise. What is so wise about muzzling one side of a dispute while leaving the other intact? Crosleybendix (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Next steps I understand that you are keen to contribute to our article on fields. Now that your block for edit-warring has expired, you must decide how you want to progress this. I notice that while blocked you continued to edit the talk page with an IP. This is not permitted and I would be within policy and custom to reblock you for this, see WP:SOCK. I decline this time to do so, but I warn you not to repeat this or further measures will be taken against you. I hope this will not become necessary as you will not require to be blocked again. Do not edit war, see WP:EW, but discuss with your sources (see WP:IRS and WP:V) on the talk page, under your proper account. I know that editing here is a steep learning curve and I am willing to help you do it right. You must accept that we are a mature community with very well-established policies and customs. If you come here you have to work within that, just like if you get a job in a university you have to listen to the people who are already working there. I can tell you have a lot to offer to the project. Please make your arguments in talk, be patient and kind to the folks who wrote the article (I am not one but was asked to look at this by someone who is. This does not mean I endorse their opinion on how the article should read.) even (especially) when you disagree with their writing, and accept that you will seldom get all of what you want, just as in most areas of life. I am a volunteer just like you, but I have been around for a good while and I am entrusted with the janitorial role of making sure that things don't get damaged. In support of that role I am allowed to block users, protect articles from editing and certain other powers. I would very much rather not use them any further here. I am also a science graduate, and have some passing understanding of the subject you are here to edit, for whatever that may be worth. Please resume your discussions in talk, but please do not edit-war or sock again. Let me know if you need any further help and I will be glad to offer it to you. --John (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC) My voice is important to me, if you take it upon yourself to snuff it out, or otherwise misrepresent it, in my book you are not out to help. The good cop bad cop, all-in-one schizo stuff is kinda weird; & your paternalism is waaaay off the mark. Ignoring you was not "unwise", & I am hardly intimidated by your inadequate mastery of the rules you wish to nail to the wall. Perhaps you should review these dictates more closely yourself & check your double standards at the door. I am speaking of editing my criticisms of your actions amongst other things. I did not start an "edit war" as you imply. Your issue was personal--disobedience to be exact, with a sprinkling of that self empowering sparkle which lording over others endows--the joy of duct tape & racquetball, which only a cop-at-heart can understand. I did not practice deception as you imply with the "sock puppet", I signed my name to every puppets comment. I am not a perp, as implied by your actions in sum. Therefore you are barking up the wrong tree. I don't buy it that you are a robot bound to regs just doing your job as implied; you are a person making choices & you chose bad faith & laziness. The generalisms you sincerely & patiently list, I'm sure are relevant in the wider context & larger community that you refer to & I'm sure what you do is of value there. I don't envy your job. In this case, however, we're talking two people debating in a forum, & an article that needs to be kept safe & sterile from any potential change lest something terrible happen! Is the cop/citizen ratio so mature in this community that there are resources to police such minor quibbles? Where am I Disneyland? Tracking IP's attached to names in order to reign in such terrorism is downright dumb for a supposedly progressive community. See WP WTF If you place an obedient noob filter on any & every minor impulse-response test that passes though looking to improve upon the low grade blasphemy passing itself off for knowledge, you will reap what you sow. The page will never make it to the C grade it claims to be. I do care about the subject, & *your* site is misrepresenting it for years now. I will continue to do what I can to fix it, with or without your rules if it's important to you that you stand in my way. There has been zero effort to address the fundamental criticism brought up a year ago now. How many people are going to bother explaining themselves after stroking a potentially infinite series of well meaning, but primarily self-serving policy enforcers hovering over a page, in order to change a few sentences? Since you have a science degree, you might know that this is a highly contentious topic. This is not an article on the use & calibration of thermometers. Therefore it is natural for the subject to attract highly contentious people--yours truly for example. There will be blood spilled before there's any movement of political ads & personal religions out of there to make room for a little truth to shine through. Certainly mine is not going to be the last word. If my words were left standing for yet another year without serious criticism & forcing of a change of my own view & prejudices to some degree, I would just soon not have my words there at all. However, this is for me to decide, not you. If constructive dialogue is more your style, & you would rather be restrained on the powers you are allowed as you claim, don't come out of the gate lurching straight for my nugs Pancho. Crosleybendix (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC) "I understand the points you are making and I encourage you to continue to raise them in talk when you are next able to do so" I am able to do so. However, the page is locked. Therefore the points remain silenced. We can continue chatting about procedural matters until you get your important points through my thick skull. Or you are free to unlock the content & perhaps risk massive vandalism & unthinkable horrible things. Your call chief. Crosleybendix (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 03 June 2015 News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out Blog: How Wikipedia covered Caitlyn Jenner’s transition Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013 In the media: Anonymous Australian editing targets football player, shooting victim Traffic report: A rather ordinary week Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC) PR request I know I asked you before, but I was hoping you forgot versus declined, would you be interested and willing to give me some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1? I've put lot's of work into this for more than three months now, but I fear it won't go anywhere for lack of interest. What do you think? RO(talk) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC) I promise to have a look but I am too tired to do it justice at the moment. Tomorrow should work though, if that is ok with you. --John (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC) No problem. Thanks, John! RO(talk) 21:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC) I've had a preliminary look at the article. It is very nice and I enjoyed reading it, but I have found some minor issues with the text. Would you prefer me to comment in detail at the peer review, as others have, edit the article directly, or both? I will hope to make more time for this tomorrow but for now my time is up. Thanks for inviting me. --John (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Both please. Thanks for your willingness to help! RO(talk) 23:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC) QuackGuru: WP:HOUND continues Greetings John! I am sorry to message you about the same matter again, but you are familiar with QuackGuru's WP:HOUND activities. It seems that he's got back to his old routines. As there has been some discussion related to the recent changes at the Acupuncture article, user QuackGuru reintroduced some of the WP:HOUND claims, according to which "I'd been following him to articles."[1]. He was previously warned by Kww[2] about this kind of activities, later by administrator Adjwilley[3]], and most recently by Adjwilley again[4]. His post goes as follows: See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_making_counterproductive_edits_at_the_acupuncture_page [...] QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Now, if you take a look at the link, QuackGuru says in the very first sentence that: I told you to stop following me to other articles.[5] See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_following_me_to_other_articles_and_undoing_my_edits. See WP:HOUND. This is exactly what QuackGuru got warned by administrators, and now he is repeating the same accusations again. I asked him to retract his comments[6], but he never did. Below a short summary: After my post on your Talk Page (15:57, 2 September 2014)[7], user Kww warned QuackGuru (22:28, 3 September 2014)[8], stating that: Your accusations of hounding and stalking don't appear to have any solid foundations. [...] If you let your tension and annoyance get the better of you, you are the only one that will lose. Later, QuackGuru targeted another editor (21:15, 5 February 2015)[9], after which Kww gave an administrative warning to QuackGuru, saying (emphasis added):[10] QG, drop this line of argument. Consider this an administrative warning. [...] If you want to find a wording that conforms to the RFC and is a little more forceful than the current statement, feel free to propose it, but bringing up nine-month-old edits in an effort to paint him making those particular edits in bad faith is unreasonable. A couple of months ago, administrator Adjwilley left a post on QuackGuru's Talk Page, "Something needs to change":[11] I personally am concerned with what seems to be a lack of collaboration with other editors, aggressive editing, abrasive interactions with others, and generally what one might call battleground behavior. Just recently, administrator Adjwilley restricted QuackGuru[12] to 0RR on Acupuncture, and 1RR on any page related to alternative medicine. He stated (emphasis added): You may use the article talk page as much as you like, but making accusations against other editors, filibustering/WP:IDHT, or focusing on contributors over content is likely to result in the removal of further privileges or a complete topic ban. Even despite of all the administrative warnings, it seems like the user has returned to his old patterns. He is again accusing me of "following him to other articles", something which he has been already warned of. Per administrator Adjwilley, he's continued to make accusations against other editors, and focusing on contributors over content. I hope you have time to take a look! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC) I am happy to have a look. Can you show me a recent diff of behaviour that you find problematic? --John (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC) This one[13]. He is bringing up the same old accusations of "following him to articles", an ungrounded accusation he's already got warned for. The very first sentence of his: "See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_making_counterproductive_edits_at_the_acupuncture_page. " is saying: "I told you to stop following me to other articles.[11] See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_following_me_to_other_articles_and_undoing_my_edits. See WP:HOUND." I asked him to retract his comments[14], but he didn't. He got already warned by Kww for these accusations, and he is now bringing those up again at the article Talk Page. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Well, you had just done a revert of six of QuackGuru's edits without providing any explanation for your reversion. When I look over the edits that you reverted, I see such things as changing hyphens to dashes (or vice versa ... I never can tell the difference between them), moving citations inside of sentences without changing either the citation or the thing cited, and moving a paragraph from one section to another: hardly the stuff of major controversy that he should have to gain your permission for in advance. I also note that the comment you are complaining about occurred before Adjwilley imposed restrictions on him. Perhaps it would be best if John used this opportunity to remind you of the perils of reverting another editor's edits without justification.—Kww(talk) 04:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Jayaguru, your most recent diff is over two weeks old, and predates the edit restriction I placed on QuackGuru. If that's all you've got, this seems to amount to WP:FORUMSHOP with a bit of WP:HOUND in my opinion. I think it would be best if you went back to focusing on content rather than on other editors, and quickly. Long posts complaining about others like the above are one of the reasons QG got the restrictions, and you seem to be following in their footsteps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)