User talk:Micha Jo

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pierre Jovanovic has been accepted

Pierre Jovanovic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Pierre Jovanovic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pierre Jovanovic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bradv 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note for Bradv

@Bradv: Hello. I note that you unstruck Wikyam (talk · contribs)'s vote on Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic page. I confess that I am surprised, as I was under the impression that you had a systematic opposition to the creation of this page. I acknowledge that I was wrong. Respect. Micha Jo (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Micha Jo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See my arguments below on my talk page Micha Jo (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=See my arguments below on my talk page [[User:Micha Jo|Micha Jo]] ([[User talk:Micha Jo#top|talk]]) 00:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=See my arguments below on my talk page [[User:Micha Jo|Micha Jo]] ([[User talk:Micha Jo#top|talk]]) 00:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=See my arguments below on my talk page [[User:Micha Jo|Micha Jo]] ([[User talk:Micha Jo#top|talk]]) 00:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Oshwah: Hello. I have been blocked by you, on the initiative of Praxidicae. These accusations are completely false, I am please asking you re-consider your decision, because this has very serious consequences.

@Oshwah: @Wumbolo: Hello. I am unable to input any comments on my investigation case page [[1]], so I am putting my comments on my talk page here below. Is this OK ? I want to be sure that the person reviewing my case can read my defence arguments. Thanks. Micha Jo (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence provided

First the evidence provided by Praxidicae doesn't hold water :

• SPA (Single Purpose Account). This is the first wikipedia page I am creating after years of passively reading. I have plans to create many others. This is not a proof.
• Similar votes : well, others like Andrewa (an administrator) are voting like me. This is not a proof.
• so-called Snafu : Apparently, it is a syntax error, and I am the only one who made it. This is an absolute zero value argument.
• Messing with time stamps : I do not know about the other user, but when I do edits, I sometimes replace the old signature with the 4~. This is NOT messing, it's trying to do things right.
• Use of open proxies. I use a VPN as security when I am connected to public Wifi networks in cafes or in airports. It prevents "man in the middle" attacks in insecure public networks. It is also the only way to access some websites like Gmail, Facebook and Youtube when I am travelling in China. Again, this is not a proof.

Could you please consider these other arguments ?

• The argument of similar IP's has not been used, so I suspect that they are different. Actually, I KNOW that they are different. Could you please check if the IP's are the same or not?
• The arguments of time stamps has not been used, so I suspect that timestamps do not match. Could you please check?
• I find it amazing that the investigation was closed so quickly with such weak or non existing evidence before I can bring counter-arguments. This is very shocking!
• We are in a heated discussion on a page that I have created, and Praxidicae is opposing my views. The trend is not in his favor, as user Andrewa (an administrator) has reversed his opinion. I was winning the debate with strong rational arguments and this false accusation is preventing me from continuing the discussion. This is a very unfair way to try to win an argument, and I suspect Praxidicae of bad faith.
• Sockpuppet investigator Ponyo who reviewed the investigation considers the accusations as "Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) with emphasis on the likely". Well this is not a proof, and indefinite banning is a very serious punishment to impose without proof.
• You are violating one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles : Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Again I completely refute these accusations.

Thanks for your consideration. This is urgent as the AfD will close soon. Best regards.Micha Jo (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

PS1. @Andrewa: @Anne Delong: @Art LaPella: @L293D: I think that I am treated very unfairly with false accusations of sockpuppetry, see here and that the situation is very serious. I am please asking you for your help. Can you have a look at it? I am considering requesting arbitration, but it will take time, and time is running out for the AfD. I was planning to bring more quality secondary sources to the debate. For example I completely missed out on Jovanovic's own huge press review on his own website. See here, it is huge!

PS2. @FeanorStar7:, @Bearcat:, @AntiCompositeNumber:, @TAnthony: Hello. You have kindly contributed to a page that I have created see here . Since then, I have been the victim of coordinated abuse :

• False accusations of undisclosed payments :
• Request for suppression of the page I have created :
• And now false accusations of sockpuppetry :

I request your support. @Jimbo Wales:, @Amakuru: @Acroterion: @WikiDan61: @Eagleash: @Alexf: @AxelBoldt: and others : What has Wikipedia become ?

Open proxies

A key issue here is your use of open proxies. I've looked at the various logs and discussions, and yes there is some inconsistency as to whether the sock puppetry is suspected or confirmed. It's the open proxies that make this very difficult.

If you have innocently done this not realising it was a problem, then I'm afraid you have made a tragic and at least partly irreversible mistake. These pose severe problems for Wikipedia. To quote Jimbo In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses. [2]

If on the other hand you have reasons to use them, the news is perhaps worse. Jimbo again If you have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the level of anonymity provided by an ip number is dangerous to you, well, I guess you shouldn't edit wikipedia. [3]

Feel free to email me if you'd like to tell me exactly what is going on, confidentially. And we can take it from there. There is such a thing as a clean start, but we'd need you unblocked first.

And it won't be in time for you to contribute further to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic, but in any case I would strongly suggest you make no further edits there or to that article. You have made your point. If that article is the only reason you are here, then that saddens me greatly, I have enjoyed our discussions and invite you again to email me to continue them. I have my own website expressing similar views, and you will find me probably more radical than Pierre. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Andrewa:, First of all, thanks for your answer, it is lonely being blocked.

I do not know what is an Open Proxy. What I use is a commercial (paid) VPN that protects me when I use wifi in airports, and allows me to access websites from countries like China where they are blocked. And this VPN is recognized by Wikipedia. Wikipedia lets me read, but I cannot edit when I am logged through the VPN. So it is impossible to make any changes to Wikipedia while I am using it.

Actually, I had a plan for creating quite a few other pages; I had no idea how hard it is. Jovanovic's page was just a first step.

I will try to contact you directly. Regards Micha Jo (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

OK... so you have made no edits when using this VPN, is that what you are saying? And the only edits you have made personally are those made when logged in at this account? Or are there exceptions?

It is very important that we get this 100% accurate. A single exception that you forget and do not reveal may remove any chance of unblocking, and I am wasting my time. So think hard!

The most popular open proxy is probably Tor. Have you used it or anything like it when editing? Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I have sent you a private email, have you received it ? I have taken a part of this email and updated it here.

Regarding the use of Proxies:

• I often use a commercial VPN for security reasons when I use public wifi networks. I sent you its name in my private email. It is recognized and blocked by Wikipedia, so I can read but cannot edit with it. So no issue here.
• I am not a user of TOR. I have never used it for editing Wikipedia. Same for Open Proxies.
• Recently, I have been testing a private VPN, which is on a server physically based in my home and that I can access from the outside. The goal of this setup is to have secure remote access to my media files stored at home, and to eventually replace the commercial VPN. And yes, I have done edits on Wikipedia with it. The key point is that the output IP of my private VPN is exactly the same IP than my home IP. That is because the VPN is physically at home, and uses my own internet provider's address. This point can be checked in my logs : when I make any edits on Wikipedia with the VPN, these edits are always done with my usual IP, and always under the userid of "Micha Jo".
• Note that I may be accessing with several IPs in different countries as I am a big traveller. I am on an aircraft several times per month. So when I connect directly from a workplace, the IP may vary, but the private VPN address never varies, as it sits in my home.
• The intent is not to hide, but to have secure access when I am on public wifis, as I spend a significant amount of my time working in airports and hotels abroad. So it is a legitimate use.
• This is quite technical, and I am no software expert. I hope that I made my points clearly. Please ask any question if there is a need for clarification.

Best regards. Micha Jo (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing

G'day again Micha Jo It's been brought to my attention that Jovanovic is canvassing support on Twitter, and linking there to the AfD on the article on himself. If you have any influence on him or his other supporters, I suggest you discourage this very strongly. IMO, the last thing we want is a flood of editors responding to this. That would be an obvious threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. We have of course no control over what he or others outside the Wikipedia community do to canvass support, but there are effective measures to minimise the damage of such campaigns. And we do not want them invoked. What we need to establish is that it is in English Wikipedia's best interests to keep the article. And this not the way to do that. It just adds ammunition for those who say we are better off without it... as French Wikipedia has already decided. And perhaps this is not entirely their fault! Best. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Andrewa, Yes,I have seen that Jovanovic has put the links on his twitter account. Apparently with not much impact. As I wrote to you on your personal email last thursday (did you receive it ?), he is more interested in protesting "wikipedia's censorship" rather than defending the AfD page. By the way, I do not see much further discussion on this page, so maybe it is time to close the debate ? Best regards. Micha Jo (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, received your email thank you.

See also User talk:Andrewa#Your email, and of course you can't comment there but I'm watching here if you wish to. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, this is reaching unexpected proportions. You should know that this is in no way orchestrated or an entrapment. I am disclosing here part of the email that I sent to Andrewa:

• I have never been paid by Jovanovic, and had no contact with him until I decided starting his page. I was just a fan of his books and youtube videos.
• My motivation was taking the side of the whistleblower who is gagged by the mainstream press, and see if I could make a change.
• If this first page had been successful, I would have gone on creating more pages on similar people. My deep belief is that we have a great wealth of original thinkers in France, and it is the right time to see a "New Wave" of intellectuals who challenge established ideas.
• I went to visit Pierre Jovanovic at his home very recently, trying to find supporting sources. It was the very first time that I had ever met the man. He has hundreds of press releases, radio and TV interviews in Italy, Canada and the USA, including CNN. But most of this material is nearly unusable, in paper form, pre-internet, with no online sources, dating from 1995. I also discovered that he had a very big press review on his own website, which is very badly structured, and that would require a lot of work to put into proper form. If the work were properly done I estimate that we could extract at least 10 to 15 quality, reputable, in-depth secondary sources. He gave me a couple of his books with dedications.
• I was trying to convince Pierre Jovanovic that Wikipedia is an open source system with some ayatollahs inside and that with due process some impact can be made. Now he is more convinced than ever that Wikipedia, just like Google and other internet giants are under complete control of the dark "deep state", and that he is the victim of organized censorship.

Micha Jo (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Micha Jo, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

wumbolo ^^^ 15:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening the investigation Micha Jo (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Usage of the word "quite"

@Wumbolo: Interesting point. I can' speak for Alyona2011 (talk · contribs), but I suppose she expressed a degree of strength. They are not synonymous. According to "very" is stronger than "quite". And saying that Pierre Jovanovic is "very" famous is an excessive statement. I quote:

• Very : "Really and very are strong. When one of these words is placed in front of an adjective or adverb, it makes the meaning of that adjective or adverb more intense, more powerful"
• Quite : "When quite is placed in front of an adjective or adverb, it adds strength, but not as much strength as really or very."

Another hypothesis might be the influence of nationality and culture. According to and  :

• "In British English quite usually means ‘fairly’: The film was quite enjoyable, although some of the acting was weak."
• "When American speakers say quite, they usually mean ‘very’: We’ve examined the figures quite thoroughly. Speakers of British English sometimes use quite to mean ‘very’, but only before words with an extreme meaning: The whole experience was quite amazing."

According to Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Other_ambiguity_(complex_cases)

• "Sometimes the confusion is more subtle. In AmE the word quite used as a qualifier is generally a reinforcement: for example, "I'm quite hungry" means "I'm very hungry". In BrE quite (which is much more common in conversation) may have this meaning, as in "quite right" or "quite mad", but it more commonly means "somewhat", so that in BrE "I'm quite hungry" can mean "I'm somewhat hungry". This divergence of use can lead to misunderstanding."

And I note that Alyona2011 uses both words :

• "Pierre Jovanovic is quite famous"
• "He is a very vocal critic" (she didn't say "he is a quite vocal critic")

It seems to me that she meant that Pierre Jovanovic is famous with a degree of "++" but that he is vocal critic with a degree of "+++".

And also, she uses the word "corrupt" which I nearly never use. Same for "famous', I use "notable", in line with Wikipedia's criteria for Biographies of living persons.

Micha Jo (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)