User talk:John-w-Buchanan
Welcome![edit]
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Doug Weller talk 21:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Removal of protection[edit]
Hi, the correct page to request this is WP:RFPP. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I told them to request at AE because they asked for unprotection of the article proper, not the talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jéské Couriano Yes, then they went to AE and asked for unprotected of the talk page ... oh well. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: For what it is worth, the talk page was protected after the article was due to a rash of sockpuppets/meatpuppets in September, and a sockpuppet was caught and 86'd on that page just last month. As to what's going on, they appear to want to bring up two sources on the talk page, so I'm thinking the initial unprot request for the article was a (very understandable) mistake. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite@Jéské Couriano if you haven’t noticed, this is another sock. But you probably know. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- (not matching your pings exactly, but Special:Diff/1195968802) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite@Jéské Couriano if you haven’t noticed, this is another sock. But you probably know. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: For what it is worth, the talk page was protected after the article was due to a rash of sockpuppets/meatpuppets in September, and a sockpuppet was caught and 86'd on that page just last month. As to what's going on, they appear to want to bring up two sources on the talk page, so I'm thinking the initial unprot request for the article was a (very understandable) mistake. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jéské Couriano Yes, then they went to AE and asked for unprotected of the talk page ... oh well. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.