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)

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)