Misplaced Pages

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

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.

If I bring back the page to compliance with NPOV, will your sanctions apply to me, I wouldn't be breaking any of the normal rules, but your rules are unclear to me and should be totally removed. In your current circumstances, for which I extend every sympathy, perhaps you could lift sanctions as they are unenforceable if you cannot be around to interpret them. Nobody appears to be watching the page at the moment or it would have been corrected, but I suppose I'm not surprised that the supporters of this fringe practise aren't putting it right. Actually, perhaps you could sort it out - it wouldn't take long. Anything is better than leaving it. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What would "bring back the page to compliance with NPOV" mean, exactly? --John (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, rather than discuss this here, perhaps you could post your suggestion at Talk:Ayurveda where others could join in? --John (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

why can't I just edit the page like I would normally? I have stopped watching the page itself, I am just checking once a week instead, as I have no desire to interact with those currently watching that page. They do not appear to be AGF editors, or it wouldn't need me. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I'd rather not have a prolonged discussion with you here about this. I'll leave you with this thought. If you are unable to assume good faith in other editors, why do you think you are the best person to edit the page? In any case, the best way forward is to propose your edits in article talk and see if you can get a consensus there. --John (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume I think I am the best person to edit the page. Stop being obstructive and please do something useful for a change. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:William Welles Bosworth.jpg

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. --John (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Please block user

Can you pleas block this user: 145.90.10.93 ? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done that. --John (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it's ready for FAC?

Hey there John,

Previously you were kind enough to helpfully copy edit articles that were part of my Quality improvement projects, including: WP:FAs: Fuck (film), Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, and WP:GA: "R U Professional".

Do you think that last one is ready for WP:FAC ?

I wanted to get your thoughts, on what the next step in the Quality improvement process for that article should be.

Thanks for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

So long as you are not in a hurry I am happy to take a look in the next week or so. Thank you for asking. --John (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not in a hurry, unfortunately I'm quite busy in life these days with other commitments, so take your time. Let me know when you've had a chance and thank you for taking a look, — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User QuackGuru and 'Wall of Shame' activities

Greetings! I am messaging you because you are familiar with user QuackGuru and his 'Wall of Shame' activities. I've brought couple of incidents to your attention even before, and apparently he is still keeping up with similar behavior.

Technically, WP:HUSH discusses the term "Wall of Shame" to be related to user talk pages. However, user QuackGuru has now merely taken a more public venue by moving from User Talk Pages to Article Talk Pages. Interesting enough, even Kww reprimanded QuackGuru:

QG, drop this line of argument. Consider this an administrative warning. There was a recent RFC. As flawed as the problem statement in that RFC was and as ridiculous as the close was, Middle 8's edits are largely in compliance with it. 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.

Anyway, just wanted to bring this to your attention. QuackGuru has been treated with kid gloves for many times now, and I think he should have understood to change his behaviour already by now. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I agree that some of their behaviour there raises concerns. I see the user seems to have stopped after a formal warning from another admin. Let's hope that sticks or there will have to be more administrative action. --John (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

• News and notes: No men beyond this point: the proposal to create a no-men space on Misplaced Pages

• Op-ed: Is Misplaced Pages for sale?

• In the media: Gamergate and Muhammad controversies continue

• Traffic report: The American Heartland

• Featured content: It's raining men!

• Arbitration report: Slamming shut the GamerGate

• WikiProject report: Dicing with death – on Misplaced Pages?

• Technology report: Security issue fixed; VisualEditor changes

• Gallery: Langston Hughes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Article

Hi John. How are you mucker?? Long time no wiki, eh. Any chance you can check this draft and hook it up for me??--Discolover18 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am very well thanks, and all the better for seeing another of your fine articles come online. I am going to develop this one a wee bit I think before I let it loose. Give me an hour or so, and I will put it up. I'll ping you when I do. Thank you once again for your work. --John (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent John. Thanks--Discolover18 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome, I polished it and added a few refs. Take care of yourself, Discolover18. --John (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well good. Your edits make it better. Thanks John. Am away home now. Take it easy mate.--Discolover18 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Splitting hairs on this article, I think it will get kept though. What's your thoughts??--Discolover18 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer review process

Maybe just come after the people who have so egregiously failed WP? You should start with me, I suppose. Victoria (tk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You must not blame yourself, but the idiosyncratic image formatting and image use policy in general, including the map, were faults which a good reviewer should have picked up. We need to go beyond personal feelings and see where we go from here. The problems at the article should be corrected, and there is a need for a shake-up at FAC and (especially) at TFA. --John (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's one way of saying that I'm not a good reviewer and that I'm being emotional. I'm not an automaton; each of us is a human being sitting in front of a computer screen; each of us has opinions and feelings and all the baggage that comes with being human. None of us is perfect by any means. As it happens I thought the "idiosyncratic" formatting was interesting and different and the content, though extremely disturbing to read, very well presented. I guess I was wrong. Anyway, I've requested a self-block so as to stay away from here for a while. Since you're an admin, maybe you'd like to do that for me? Victoria (tk) 21:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you're a great reviewer but nobody's perfect. The review process thrives on attracting a variety of people. It just happens nobody on that review noticed the things that have now been brought up. It will get fixed, and you should try not to worry about it. If you want to stay away for a few days, you can achieve that without getting blocked. Take care, --John (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft

Hi John. Can you check this draft for us. It is pretty short. It is a requested article. So hopefully when it's up and running somebody can add a bit more to it.--Discolover18 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put it up Discolover. Nice one. Thanks a million for another fine contribution. Are you keeping well? --John (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Morning John. Yeah, I'm keeping all right. Getting by, ye know.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Tetra quark

Please can you consider extending the block of User:Tetra quark? They replaced the lead image on Jesus with pornography on Commons, in what seems like a revenge attack on en-wiki via its usage. I would hate to see them allowed to do that again in 6 days time. They have been indef-blocked on Commons. --99of9 (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't think I can take action based on what they have done on another project. Let me think. --John (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@99of9: No en.wiki admin can take any action based on what he has done on commons or any other Misplaced Pages project, you may want to contact WMF if you believe that his actions are harmful towards multiple Misplaced Pages projects.

John you may want to protect Universe. Since TQ's block, about three different accounts had recently contributed on this article and none of their edits were acceptable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Universe. Thanks for the heads-up. --John (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I haven't looked up the exact wording of the blocking rules, but it seems like it should have a special case for the few actions on other projects which can directly affect the (lead image!) content of this project (especially when this action was clearly aimed in revenge against this project). --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now I've checked WP:BLOCK, and the key sentence is "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project". This is about the effect, not the source location of the disruption, so IMO admins would be authorised to go ahead with this. I'd argue that it should count as inappropriately placing explicit images on pages. --99of9 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@John:@Graeme Bartlett: I came across another questionable WP:3RR rule violation by User:Tetra quark in the article Science communication, done six days before the current one. This was three different reverts in 08 hours 39 minutes, and inside the 24 hour limit. There seems no desire or attempt to seek consensus here, whose reasons are stated as only "unrelated image", then "unrelated", and the uncommented final revert. (None of the current users are involved in the latest dispute are acting in this new one.) While I see no need for further sanctions here, it plainly shows problems understanding reverts by this User. (While saying this might be unfair to someone who cannot reply, it strengthens support for the current actions.)

Also in Age of the universe article, User:Tetra quark says "This has been discussed in the past. It's going to be capitalized, as in many other articles." This is plainly not true, as it is still being discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment and hasn't reached consensus. He already knows this, but doesn't seem to want to contribute input to solve it.

But just one hour before this statement, he did request renewal for WP:AWB registration on the Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Here User:Tetra quark states "Had my registration canceled a while ago and now I'm ready to use it again if necessary" This was declined by User:Graeme Bartlett, who said "...come back when there are a couple of months of noncontroversial editing." This is again an example of WP:GAMING, where it clearly states "Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus."" Under the discussion above, which shows concerns with possible future disruptions, it would seem even more questionable to give future access to WP:AWB.

I've tried to understand User:Tetra quark's actions here, but the recent braking the WP:CIV guidelines and the continued WP:GAMING to gain some advantage makes WP:GF near impossible. I am already interested in cosmology and astronomy articles, and I do think his WikiProject Cosmology WP:COSMOLOGY was a really great idea. However, there seems the singular perception that somehow these are 'his' articles, and his actions are some kind of vanguard against all other editors. Even my own recent edits have backed off on these subjects to avoid open conflict.

I think 99of9 earlier comments (above) on the severe conduct disruptions stem from not from deliberate acts but from not seeing things other than his hardline point of view. I.e. The sheer unbending nature expressed in wanting the capitalisation of the word Universe (and some other common terms), as shown above and the last month, and desiring the means of imposing it through AWB, appears the only main goal.

I fear the possible accusation of WP:HARASSMENT here, but the central issue comes back to my ability of editing cosmology and astronomy articles, which is already traditionally littered with minutia of overcomplicated rules of style. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of the failed AWB application but I had not seen the other spate of reversions. If I had I would have blocked earlier. I had previously asked him to revert his 1000 edits to capitalise "universe" and he had agreed to do so if the proposal failed to gain consensus. In spite of everything it would greatly have been my preference if the user had proved capable of learning to work within our community here, but so far he has not. I personally will hold out one last chance if Tetra quark wants to post an unblock or resume editing after his current block expires in a few days. The next block will be indefinite in the light of the way his behaviour has failed to improve. I may take any such block to AN/I for a block review. I can't see anyone objecting given the history but it is good practice to do so in a case where one admin has applied most of the sanctions. Let us see what happens. --John (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point I don't think any block has to be extended just because some more of the same kind of editing is discovered. TQ seems to be very enthusiastic and may be pushing things a bit far, and so asked for AWB again so soon. If TQ proves he can work with other editors after the week, then that will be good. I would not call a second AWB request gaming as we have few rules about this. But going to the brink of 3RR shows he is missing the idea but trying to follow the rule. We could extend the block because of the vandalism, but it was not doubt done in a fit of anger which may be over in a week. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. --John (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, please ensure you watch like hawks when the week is up. --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I agree that the action stems from being upset and angry about some kind of issue on en-wiki, but it was also a "deliberate act". It takes quite some deliberation to go to another project to locate the lead image of a highly significant religious figure, locate some hardcore pornography, and go through the overwriting upload steps to replace one with the other. This was no accident. --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

• From the editors: We want to know what you think!

• News and notes: One editor faces likely ban for work on Misplaced Pages; Jimmy Wales awarded $1 million

• In the media: Is Misplaced Pages eating itself?

• Featured content: A grizzly bear, Operation Mascot, Freedom Planet & Liberty Island, cosmic dust clouds, a cricket five-wicket list, more fine art, & a terrible, terrible opera...

• Traffic report: Bowled over

• WikiProject report: Brand new WikiProjects profiled

• Gallery: Feel the love

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Tabloid Terminator : 12 February 2015

• News and notes : 30 BLPs cite The Sun
• 14 BLPs cite The Daily Star
• 454 BLPs cite The Daily Mail
• Featured content: Lead of José Mourinho not longer cites The Daily Star
• Just because Matt Lucas doesn't like the Daily Mail, that's no reason to use The Sun and The Mirror instead
• From the editors: Should we start going after The Daily Express?

Ritchie333 13:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good work Ritchie and thank you for that. I miss User:Hillbillyholiday, he was onto a good idea there. --John (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)