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)


I would rather not discuss this with the participants in the dispute unless there is something specific to discuss. --John (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[edit]

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: 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)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

PR request[edit]

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[edit]

23 May is not recent on 11 June. I endorse Adjwilley's advice here. --John (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings John! I 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)

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.

June 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Galashiels 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:
  • a [[burgh]] in [[Selkirkshire]] on the [[Gala Water]] river. The name is often shortened to "Gala" ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɡ|æ|l|ə}}.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you BB I appreciate your diligence. --John (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Alan Partridge[edit]

Hi. A couple of years ago, you rightly tagged the Alan Partridge page as needing a lot of work. I've completely rewritten the article and sourced (most of it). I'm aiming to get the article to GA status. It's not there yet - there's still work to be done, but if you have any time - I'd appreciate any feedback you have. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have a look. --John (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

What can I do to stop an incivil admim?[edit]

John, I want to keep the specifics out of it to avoid drama, but there is an administrator who has a history of calling others intentional liars on Wikipedia and it makes things really difficult to engage in a dialogue. Since this is an administrator we're talking about I feel uncomfortable dealing with it like I would a normal editor. I think this admin has even been warned before for incivility, yet persists in the behavior. If I want the behavior to stop, what should I do? LesVegas (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Les, the best way for you to deal with an administrator that points out when you are intentionally being deceitful is to start being honest. You've spent the last day on Talk:Acupuncture bringing forth sources that don't support your points, intentionally leaving language out of quoted material from sources that shows that they don't support your points, misrepresenting policy contents, evading straightforward questions about your arguments and providing false answers to questions. I've been quite civil about it. If, at any point, you had chosen to stop, it would have stopped. I'd like it to stop forever, but that ball is in your court.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to keep the drama out if this but you followed me over here to jump in and continue your accusations, so I apologize for this John. I hardly understand how I provided false sources when I pointed out neck pain, migraine phropylaxis, period pain, fibromyalgia, tension headaches, and anti-psychotic effects, all of which were new publications after April 2009, and all of which were new findings or different findings than the old list you posted here. You jumped right out accusing me of spreading intentional falsehoods and saying that none of it was refuted. You asked over and over what conditions had changed and I a couple of times I mentioned neck pain, which was also in my original post. When you realized you were wrong, instead of apologizing for calling me a liar, you doubled down. Kww, your problem is that you don't want to assume good faith but instead assume everyone is a liar, and when you're shown to be wrong you're in too deep so you just have to continue incivility at that point. It makes for toxic talk pages. I feel very uncomfortable to have to discuss civility with an administrator, and this is far from the first time you have acted inappropriately. I hope you are capable of changing your ways. LesVegas (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am happy to help. First, I need some diffs from you both. LesVegas, show me three sample diffs of Kww being uncivil (be warned that I have a fairly high threshold for what constitutes an actionable breach of WP:CIVIL). Kww, show me three sample diffs of LesVegas misbehaving in the ways that you outline. You should both know by now that claims without evidence are worth very little. --John (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The essence of Les's argument was that there have been later Cochrane reviews that refuted the statement "Cochrane reviews found acupuncture is not effective for a wide range of conditions" in the lead. We can assume with the amount of time that Les devotes to the article that he is familiar with the study used as a citation:it reviews the contents of studies of treatment of 32 conditions, and comes to the conclusion that in 28 of the 32 cases, acupuncture has either proven ineffective or there there is no sign of effectiveness. It could be legitimately argued that the lead should read "found no evidence of effectiveness for a wide range", but that isn't the argument Les made.
  • WP:MEDDATE inapplicability. This could have started as an actual error. MEDDATE specifically exempts Cochrane reviews with "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the above window". This was pointed out at 15 jun 2015 om 22:58. If Les had stopped quoting MEDDATE at that point, I would class this as an actual error. In fact, he continued to quote MEDDATE: [15], [16] and [17]/
  • Intentionally leaving language out of quoted material. The essence of Les's argument is that the Cochrane studies he quotes somehow weaken or invalidate Ernst's conclusions. But what statements did he leave out of the quoted studies?
  1. "information available was small scale and rated to be very low or low quality by the review authors, so not completely provable and valid."
  2. "Three of the four trials in which acupuncture was compared to physiotherapy, massage or relaxation had important methodological shortcomings. Their findings are difficult to interpret, but collectively suggest slightly better results for some outcomes with the latter therapies."
  3. "There is no evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions"
  4. "The review found some evidence for the use of acupuncture in managing period pain. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies and study participants. No significant adverse effects were identified in this review. ... however there is a need for further well-designed randomised controlled trials."
In short, systematic selective quotation, designed to make studies that found no conclusive results appear better than they are. If you review the original Ernst study that these are being used as refutation for, there's a pretty good chance he would have categorized them as not demonstrating effectiveness.
  • Thanks for that Kww. LesVegas, do you accept that account is substantially true? --John (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As much as I would like to agree with Kww's account out of the spirit of de-escalation, it is not accurate in the least.

  • Kww states the very essence of my argument entirely wrong. The essence of my argument has not always been that latter Cochrane reviews have refuted the statement, "Cochrane reviews found acupuncture is not effective for a wide range of conditions" but rather that the support for such a statement is outdated since it was published in April 2009 and has not been updated. Since that time, there have been changes in Cochrane's view on neck pain, for example, and as the evidence base grows some changes have been made to the character of their statements. Additionally, new conditions which were not analyzed in April 2009 have emerged in Cochrane, so the number 32 which Kww keeps pointing out, has now grown, and it has grown more to the positive side than it was in 2009. This is a fact he refuses to acknowledge. Wikipedia:MEDDATE tells us to find up-to-date evidence, within the last 5 years or so. Since the source falls outside the range of 5 years, and since there have been updates to Cochrane during that time, it stands to reason that we should use a new source. So, as you can see my argument is a little more complex and policy-based than Kww makes it out to be.
  • Kww's claim that I am using Wikipedia:MEDDATE inappropriately is also entirely false. Kww stated that MEDDATE states that Cochrane Reviews are updated regularly. While this is true, and while I actually agreed with this fact, it's beside the point as I showed Kww. The fact that Cochrane reviews are regularly updated, does not change the fact that a review of Cochrane reviews by Edzard Ernst is not regularly updated and has already gone past the 5 year threshold. Why not use a new source? I did. I added a secondary source by the NHS of Cochrane evidence, which is regularly scheduled to be updated and maintained. Why not use a source like that which will always be evergreen? Why should editors go through endless arguments and debates every time a source is outdated? But the simple fact that Kww baselessly accuses me of ignoring his MEDDATE inapplicability argument, shows that he's not listening to anything I am saying on the talk pages, and perhaps that is because he's too busy using talk pages to make uncivil accusations to engage is reasoned discourse.
  • Kww accuses me of intentionally leaving out quoted material, but how can he say what my intentions are? Again, to assume my intentions are bad is to assume bad faith. But look no further than your own talk page for evidence of Kww, in pure KETTLEish fashion, doing exactly what he accuses me of, which is leaving out language of quoted material, such as:
  1. In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12 additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care. There is no evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions, though this is difficult to interpret, as exact point location could be of limited importance. Available studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects. Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment.


  1. In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for tension-type headache was considered insufficient. Now, with six additional trials, the authors conclude that acupuncture could be a valuable non-pharmacological tool in patients with frequent episodic or chronic tension-type headaches.

So while Kww left that quoted material out, I am not going to suggest what his intentions were because, unlike him, I think that's uncivil. I do not know what his intentions are in paraphrasing quotes. Maybe they were similar to mine, which was just showing the most relevant information to support whatever point you're trying to make. Or maybe Kww's intentions are to pull the wool over your eyes in his crusade to "forcibly expel every editor" who disagrees with him (see below). In the final analysis, there is no way for anyone to know another's intentions. But I do not think our policies allow him to baselessly accuse others of intentionally trying to spread falsehoods, and in the interest of civility I think the best course of action is to simply point out the facts and try not to make things personal. Unlike, Kww, I actually believe WP:CIVIL is a suicide pact, and I do not ever see any time where it is appropriate to be uncivil, where it is ever appropriate to insult others, where it is ever appropriate to call them liars, and especially not when all evidence points to the contrary. I believe calm, rational civil discourse will always help up to sort out the facts first. Assuming bad-faith intentions right off the bat creates a lot of heat but never any light.

  • Kww accuses me of evading straightforward questions about the source, and this couldn't be further from the truth. I originally posted all the differences I saw, and I have since found more. Kww's very first response to Cochrane updates I posted which state things like "In a previous version of this review, evidence stated X, but now is sufficient to state Y" was to say that I am it appears I am intentionally misreading a source. How can normal rational dialogue possibly ensue from that point? After that, Kww's very next argument was that we should exclude these Cochrane-updated refutations all because some of the authors are Chinese! While I personally feel it is shameful to suggest race or country of origin should have any bearing whatsoever with what makes it onto our encyclopedia, my point in bringing this up here is that it seems Kww is almost trying to make the most-combative, most offensive arguments possible right out of the gates. In the first argument he accuses me of intentionally misreading a source, and in the second argument he said we should exclude Cochrane reviews with Chinese authors. Good discourse impels us to try finding some common ground, cite policy, make reasoned and tempered statements at all times, but especially in a discussion's genesis. As I said, my argument has always been that the data behind the wide statement in question has changed. Kww appeared to assume my argument was merely Ernst has been refuted, but that's not been my argument at all. If Kww had cared to listen he would have seen me arguing that we have had some refutations, like neck pain, but we have also had new positive findings since 2009 like tension headaches, migraines, fibromyalgia, anti-psychotic effects, and so on. But Kww did not start this discussion caring to listen, he started the discussion hurling insults and incivilities. With behavior like this, how can he possibly hear my points? And the fact that he posts mistaken arguments above, contrasting to the diffs I provided, is evidence to my point that he's too busy angrily insulting me and a billion Chinese people to listen to talk page comments.

Anywho, you had asked for me to provide diffs of Kww's uncivil behavior. I provided a few of these in my argument above and in my reply to Kww. But here are a few more. You might check out this thread where Kww persistently berates me and calls me an intentional liar without any substantiation. You should also check out where he made rude and uncivil COI accusations towards me and other editors. He has also made comments like I firmly believe that if we forcibly expelled every editor that spoke in favor of acupuncture, chiropractic, Ayurveda, and similar forms of false medical treatment we could make more progress faster which hardly creates a collegial and civil editing environment. He called an editor my "accomplice" for defending me. And check out this here where he bullies Littleolive oil. I also see that he once had to be warned by you for incivility. I wasn't coming to you to block Kww, and I really wanted to keep the drama away. I am just tired of this admin with the stated goal of "forcibly expelling every editor" that speaks in favor of an alt-med accusing others without substantiation. Given his stated intentions to forcibly expel everyone who disagrees with him, it almost seems like he's trying to create charges to stick to me and others. But aside from that, it creates a toxic environment where discourse is an impossibility on our talk pages. I'm not asking you to block him, I just want Kww's behavior to stop however possible. LesVegas (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, both of you for your submissions. I will now need a day or two to properly examine them. I am quite happy to continue to discuss here while I read and ponder but I would request that you restrict yourselves to one (or fewer!) major pieces of evidence, on the practical grounds that you have each given me a lot to digest already. I am sure there is plenty of material there for me to work on, and I am a volunteer like yourselves with other demands on my time. Can I take this initial opportunity to thank you both for your diligence and quick work in presenting diffs rather than continuing the argument here? I may have questions for you both at a later time. One initial observation from a glance at the diffs is that I can more easily enforce behavioural norms than content disputes. In fact I am as powerless as any individual editor to look into specific content disputes. Nor can I read minds; if it is alleged that an editor made edits with the intent to deceive or disrupt I am unlikely to be able to take action for this intent, even though it may be true. However I can of course form a picture and look for patterns, and it is this that will take the time. Particularly in light of these serious allegations, it is vital that you both avoid any appearance of continuing to make edits which have been flagged as problematical, even when you do not agree with such flagging. Can I take it as read that you have ceased to actively dispute for the meantime? One good lesson I have learned is to pace oneself; when in a dispute it is often profitable to walk away for a few days and others will watch the area while you are gone. If one can use that time for self-reflection then that is all to the good. So, please be nice and patient with one another and with me as I look at the evidence. This will explicitly include your current contributions as well. I will be back. --John (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, John. It's no sweat not editing for a few days and if you have any questions or need clarification on anything, please message me and I will be happy to answer you. Thank you for taking the time to look at this. LesVegas (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll leave my evidence alone, and restrict myself to pointing out that failing to follow basic logical principles may be a competence problem rather than intentional deceit. It's at least possible that Les believes his own arguments. The problems it causes aren't substantially different.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Update; I am looking at this. I have examined the diffs and should be able to come up with some recommendations later this evening. Thank you both for your patience. --John (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't been able to finalise this this evening as I had hoped. I was involved in a minor traffic incident earlier. There were no injuries but dealing with it has taken all of my time and energy. I will do my utmost to resolve this as soon as possible. --John (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem, John. Please take whatever time you need. I haven't been able to actively edit much this week anyhow as I have had some family issues to tend to. I'm glad to hear your traffic accident was just minor, but I still hope everything is ok. I was in a somewhat complex auto accident recently myself and, months later, I'm still driving a rental car and dealing with insurance companies! So I know how time consuming the process can be. Thank you kindly for the update. LesVegas (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Radar imaging[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. --John (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

Omega point article and Potential Additional 3RR[edit]

@John: @Abierma3: @Smk65536: @Isambard Kingdom: It has come to my attention that Abierma3 has been possibly engaging in multiple edit warring on the article Omega point as clearly seen on [18]. Abierma3 has reverted other submissions to Smk65536, Isambard Kingdom within the last two days, and now me, without discussing this properly on the Talk:Omega_Point page. Comments on these edits [19],[20] (and the edits around it) are of particular concern. Be aware that Smk65536 [21] was advised about 3RR their behaviour, who did acted seemingly appropriately in the circumstance.

I have just presented a preemptive WP:3RR warning [22] in the hope of avoiding further necessary conflict(s), but Abierma3 has already violated 3RR here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

Chetro Ketl[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO(talk) 17:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)