User talk:Johnuniq

I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise.

Archives

Archived stuff of interest

Your comment at AE

Hello Johnuniq. I saw your recent comment art WP:AE#MichaelNetzer. Do you consider yourself to be an uninvolved editor for purposes of commenting there? Part of my question is sheer curiosity, because generally we see the usual suspects who are affiliated with one side or the other. Formally, any comments that are made at AE by uninvolved editors should be taken into account by whoever closes the request. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved as I have never edited in the P-I area, and I have only rarely seen an article in the P-I area, and I don't recall commenting about any P-I issues until I noticed the disagreement at User talk:Nishidani#Notes nearly two weeks ago, and I do not have any strong feelings about P-I issues. For full disclosure, I should mention that I did offer some help in making diffs and formatting wikitext at User talk:Nishidani#Diff confusion a month ago (re AE comments concerning P-I), and I should explain that I have interacted with Nishidani over an extended period in matters relating to Shakespeare authorship question, and have come to admire his extensive knowledge and scholarship (although of course knowledge of Shakespeare does not translate to knowledge of P-I issues, so in that area Nishidani is an unknown quantity as far as I am concerned). It was when I saw the accusations at his talk page (mentioned in my comment in the diff you give above) that I had a look at the issue and commented at Nishidani's talk and at the related Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Proposal, and finally at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

polygenicpathways.co.uk

Re:- comments Relating to links to the PolygenicPathways site:

The site is indeed my own, but the contents within are the fruits of the labours of hundreds of other researchers worldwide: All I do is to compile published gene and risk factor association data (with numerous references and links to Pubmed)and then use an established pathway analysis network (KEGG), with permission, to provide an integrated view of the signalling networks disrupted by the various genes.There are also links to my work, which is mainly a systems analysis approach to the contents of the site, but anyone else can do this as well. The site is used by most major academic research centres and pharmaceutical companies in the field, and is I hope also useful to those suffering from these conditions. I do not offer medical advice, nor am I selling anything, although I gain a meagre revenue from Google ads and Jobsites which do not cover the cost of the site. Ths site is verified by HonCode, registered at the Neuroscience Information framework, (a branch of the NIH), and partnered with KEGG and NextBio. It is primarily academic and the contents are all verifiable. I hope that this clears up any misunderstanding, and that links to the site will be permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjc22 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns additions of external links to polygenicpathways.co.uk.

There is a note at User talk:Cjc22#Links with a link to WikiProject Medicine which is where discussion about the link should occur. If you were not satisfied with that discussion, you could seek other views at WP:ELN. I don't think I have removed any of the links (that was done by others), although I did leave the standard message at your talk page. My personal opinion does not count for much, so please make your case at the WikiProject. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAIG and Sam Jones

Greetings, Johnuniq. I have started a discussion about your recent edit to the Mayors Against Illegal Guns article. You are invited to join in, at Talk:Mayors Against Illegal Guns#Sam Jones self-defense incident. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—I have responded at the article talk, where I will see any further comments. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard discussion concerning cave coordinates

Hi Johnuniq. You recently posted on the CoI noticeboard Cave coordinates and suggested I ignore the posting by Andy (Pigs on the Wing), however I am unfamiliar with you or any authority you may have at Wikipedia. Since you posted there, do I take it that the result of the discussion started by Andy, per you wikinotes edit, is that this is not a COI Issue and is resolved? How does this work, I'm not sure of the process. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any authority, and am not an administrator. Actually, no one has any authority (not even admins) at the COI noticeboard—it's the usual never-finished "government by consensus" model. No one has posted since my "forget it" comment a couple of days ago, and that can be taken as a sign that consensus supports my suggestion (see WP:SILENCE). I have a good grasp of Wikipedia's procedures, and what I said there is correct. It might flare up again, but it will never get any traction because the report is a misunderstanding of WP:COI. If you look through the rest of the COI noticeboard you will see that reports are rarely "closed" in any official or semi-official manner. The report just allows other editors to look at the issue and comment or take action if they think it is warranted. Please notify me if you want my advice in case the issue is raised elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the only thing I can think of is Andy not responding to my efforts for conflict resolution between him and I. He requires me to cease what he feels to be CoI (see Andy's Talk Page). Until he feels that is not happening there is the strong likelihood he will continue to wikihound me. I am trying to be courteous by not going through a mediator and is the first consideration in conflict resolution. I already saw that another person had a problem with Andy and they took it to a personal dispute page but Andy did not participate. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you cannot please all the people all the time. Some like to splatter Wikipedia with all the TRUE FACTS, and some are more discerning. Don't worry about it. The issue concerns whether certain articles should include coordinates to caves on private property, and that's all you need to focus on—do not be distracted by attacks that are intended to win the war. I am not going to get particularly involved, but from what I saw last time I looked, most editors seemed to agree with your position (or perhaps that's because it was the BLP noticeboard?). Wikihounding is hard to define because all experienced editors know that if they find one dubious edit, they should check the editor's contributions and look for other dubious edits. Accordingly there are many inappropriate claims of wikihounding at places like WP:ANI. However, if unequivocally good edits of yours are reverted, or if the hounding gets severe (e.g. more than the caves becomes involved), put a couple of links here and I'll see if I can offer advice. Frankly I think you will just have to tolerate the bumpy ride because I don't expect the other side to go extremely over the top (sufficient for a report at ANI). There are lots of people here, and we can't all agree—the trick is to not let it get under your skin. Give up trying to convince everyone, but be careful not to fall into the trap of becoming uncivil. Johnuniq (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine and I'm not trying to please everybody. Though I am working on trying to remain civil. I'm only human! But the hounding that I do feel he has done, seems to me, to be an effort to silence or stymie conversations I may be having elsewhere, by linking it to past conversations that are lengthy and contentious, thus editors don't want to become apart of the conversations I start or are then predisposed to think one way because of the past topics. For instance, at Village Pump I haven't got a single response for my inquiry and think that is due to his post. So far Andy is trying to link my topic on how to properly cite in regards to cave infoboxes with my original discussion regarding the merge of the UKinfobox with the original. There is no link, yet he continues to plop in a list of alleged related topics. I'm thinking about compiling my own list on my talk page to note everywhere he does this to document the wikihounding. I will basically use his own edits as proof positive. The more he does it, the more it's apparent. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominative determinism

I saw your comment on 4 January at ANI. The above article has now been fully protected one week by another admin. So unless we see more stalking or personal attacks from JR I hope this dispute will quiesce. The IP has unfortunately come out with gems like "I was abusive to you after you were abusive to me" and he managed to break 3RR at Nominative Determinism just like his opponent. Otherwise the case would be even more one-sided than it is. If you happen to notice any more edit warring please let me know. I am glad to see that the IP recently opened an RfC at Talk:Secular humanism, which shows he knows how to do things right. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be in touch if needed. Yes, the IP excessively stirred the dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment?

Could you have a look at this section and provide an opinion? It's a sufficiently complex issue I'd like some input from other experienced editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek. I read (most of) your "Rind's perspective" link at Talk:Rind et al. controversy#Dallam et al and the whole topic sets off my skeptic alarm bells, and I don't believe that studies or a meta-analysis can actually illuminate whether child sexual abuse has or has not caused psychological harm because the confounding issues are overwhelming. Rind's perspective looks very sound, but I cannot get sufficiently enthusiastic to investigate more—sorry. All I can do is attempt to prevent disruption. I might offer some thoughts in due course, but they would not be particularly helpful. I'm thinking there is no way the article can avoid mentioning Dallam's criticisms, yet I suspect you are correct that they may be undue. About all I can think is to keep everything brief so the article does not have to give the final word to one side, and to avoid coatracking. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the reason I'm soliciting input from experienced editors is because it's something I really want to be sure is a good idea. I think I might move the criticisms from their own section into the "history"-esque part with as simple note of "criticisms were made, but Rind rebutted" (something more sophisticated, but that would be the essence). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for Qian Zhijun

Since you participated in the BLP thread, the DRV discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Qian_Zhijun_and_Little_Fatty WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to engage. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Johnuniq,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Houdini

You stated on the Harry Houdini talkpage that "(that URL is on the blacklist and cannot be entered normally)" what blacklist do you refer to ? please respond on my talkpage, thank you. Penyulap_talk 20:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Penyulap#Houdini: WP:BLACKLIST. Johnuniq (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 24, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref question

Could you please explain this edit. Reference obviously shouldn't be used to promote books, but I can't see any evidence this was the case here. Could you clarify? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user's contributions consist entirely of adding information about a particular book to five different articles. Yes, it's undoubtedly innocent (readers of those articles may very well be interested in the book being promoted), but providing an external link to a pdf of the book jacket and table-of-contents is not a reasonable use of Wikipedia. As far as I can see, no information from the book is present in the article, so using a "reference" is not appropriate, and it's clearly WP:REFSPAM anyway. Please translate this into non-bitey language for the user (who I see is at the WP:HELPDESK). Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop teasing. What is your agenda?

Johnuniq: You posted to Rind et al. Controversy:

“

If you want to know about my agenda, please ask on my talk page (although the answer would not be of much interest, I'm afraid). Johnuniq (talk) 2:02 am, Today (UTC−5)

”

I apologize for writing that you know nothing.

I meant to say you are not of much use to my agenda and my editing because you refuse to make yourself more competent by reading Rind (1998). I was usually trying to ignore you as much as I could because you apparently know little about the scholarly literature on the Rind topic, you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the scholarly literature or even read the posts on the TALK page, and have a total of one post to main page of that topic, which was a redaction of a complicated post which I had spent a lot of time producing. I have an agenda: to correct the bias and hatchet job done on Rind et al by past editors from Rind et al. Wikipedia. I have little use for the old editors who are responsible for the hatchet job, or for allowing it to remain uncorrected for so long. Rightly or wrongly, I have placed you in that camp of editors I have little use for: you and intelligent editors who play dumb, and who have little respect for the fact that the Rind et al. authors are real people, and their science and their motivations deserve the same honest assumption of good faith, as Wikipedia editors here try to offer to one another.

I am beginning to rethink your usefulness to my agenda in light of your persistent calling attention to yourself, your claim that you know the Wikipedia experience and could be useful to me in that way, and your getting User: Ohbunnies to do your dirty work for you. So I would get mad at her instead of you? What's really going on here? Is there more than what I was receptive to seeing up until now? I entertain the possibility that there is something that might interest me going on here, and that you even know this vaguely or clearly before I do, because of past experience.

You frequently comment in generalities about many of my posts, breaking the same rules you want to apply to me, often dealing with rules and policies without reference to related URL for the original Wikipedia polices. Your posts are about things you feel that are wrong, but they are not that wrong according to the letter of the rules and policies. I did look at them, including the rules for the TALK page. OhBunnies has violated the rules more than you have yesterday, but you wanted her to take the blame. Puzzling. I suspect you make up rules based on the collective experience you read on Noticeboards, but you do not give me the URL's of the discussions that motivate your brief messages. It would be a lot of trouble for you to go back and find those old discussions and post them for me. You would not know if I would read them if you did that. Specific URL's to specific administrative discussions would be more helpful to me. I would read them. If you are asking me to use you as a reference source, the message is clouded with other messages that say you don't like what I am doing. (My posts are too long, I don't know the rules and Wikipeida experience as you do. You deal only with formalities and not with content, Etc.) But I am beginning to see your persistence in calling attention to yourself and your "presenting yourself" blandly, in a more receptive light today. I notice that within hours of many things I write, you call attention to yourself with some kind of reaction or comment that I rarely find specific enough to find useful. I wish you would just go away and leave me alone. I have already told you that, and you ignore my wishes in this regard. If you were here, I'd say: "I don't need you, and I don't want to learn about Wikipedia from you. Let me pick my own Wikipedia masters. I don't trust you give me the slant I want to use. I distrust your cherry picking of the rules to suit your agenda."

You persist in saying something in unclear generalities and in code: Is this your coded message: "you don't know that you need me. If you try me, I would show you how things work around here. And you would eventually discover that you do need my technical expertise to survive here." Is something like that going on? Is something like the reversal of that gong on?

I am keenly aware that you are stalking me, snoop around in my sandbox to read a draft of my response to you before I was willing to openly post it, and then, this is important, almost immediately reveal to me that you've been snooping in my sandbox! You took a letter from my User page from a known troll, and posted that to some Administration list, trying to make yourself helpful, and excusing yourself in the process. You want to know everything you can about me that I leave traces of on Wikipedia. There is a kind a detective quality about you, repeatedly announcing with some vague authority what is allowed at Wikipedia (as you know it from handing out at noticeboards). And insisting that what I write to too long to read!

You are holding something back, and I now do suspect that you do have some kind of agenda that you have not revealed, and you asked me to please ask on your talk page if I want to know about your agenda. "Please"? I noticed for some time your considerable civility, and I note (and appreciate) that. If you were a detective, you would not have revealed yet that you were snooping in my sand box and announced that you read my incomplete response. I am more receptive now if you are willing to honestly share what your agenda is. You prejudice me by saying the answer would not be of much interest to you. I refuse to let you prejudice me about whether I might be interested or not. Try me. I might be more interested in knowing your agenda than you think. Or I could take an interest because you persistently present your experience and expertise when you see that I am around. You want to make frequent contact with me. Detectives try to keep their spying private; you announce with your posts that you have been watching me. But your posts have been characteristically opaque and withholding, and I expect that this opaqueness will continue. I encourage you to be as transparent as conditions here and your distrust/dislike/curiosity of/about me (and my work on Wikipedia) allow, as I think this agenda business could possibly improve the quality of our future interactions. Are you trying to figure out if you can trust me, that might be very hard to deal within this medium. It depends on what you want, how transparent the situation allows us to be, and whether this fits into what I set out to do here. Maybe you don't know yourself what your full agenda is. Or there are very strong argument to keep your agenda secret. And your agenda might differ depending on what my response to your offers are. Your next response will play a part in where we go from here. Do you want to play hard ball with me? We might learn some things about each other in the process. I want you to know that I will pick the game based on whether I believe I have a good chance of winning that game. By getting OhBunnies to move my letter from the TALK page, you dare me to do something about it. Before I thought I would just ignore you enough until you went away. Now I am thinking, I do not want to do battle with you and lose. If we are preparing to do battle, I don't want to expose my intelligence to you in personal communication, but save it for battle in the formal process. And hit you hard and make it painful, so you think before you take me on a second time. Or do you want to collaboratively share what you know about Wikipedia, without doing battle, so I can become a better editor and accomplish my goal of neutralizing the Wikipedia hatchet job on Rind et al. This Rind et al. business is a matter of fairness for me. Fairness and justice are an intense part of my agenda.

The side issue is: to share from my experience at Rind et al. controversy with new editors. You have not reacted to the substance of the letter of advise. You don't want to deal with the substance, you only want to deal with where I may post it?

I am considering gong to conflict resolution because you and Oh Bunny violated the copyright to my post to the TALK page with a one and one half hour notice, and without my prior permission. Despite my lack of Wikipedia experience, I think I can get some kind of acceptable compromise on this from dispute resolution, and you would be comfortable with the compromise. Since you got OhBunnies to do the dirty work, your record will be unblemished with this matter. We could probably do this resolution without formal help, but maybe not. Don't know you well enough to say. I would have denied you permission to move my letter if you had waited longer than one and a half hours for my response. I was in a meeting and was unable to respond within your one and a half hour demand. Such impatience is not like you. What is really going on, and please share what you can about your agenda?

Are you lying when you write that you do not read my posts? You read what's in my sandbox early in the morning and never what I post to the TALK page? Give me a break. Do you read but can't understand what I write and where I am coming from? Or you simply don't want to make a record that you are communicating about content with me?

BTW, I have another question for you: Do you have some undisclosed COI around the Rind topic? Any COI issue around Rind et al. would also be helpful for me to know. I assume your good faith in wanting to make a honest reply, but accept the fact that you may lack the temperament or skill or permission or context to do this.

BTW, If you want to use Wikipedia e-mail, that works for me, but I noticed that Wikipedia e-mail sometimes gives the sender's email address. Here's something you could help me with: Do you know how to keep your e-mail address hidden when sending Wikipedia e-mail? You could help me by referring me to instructions on that. I thought I had that set correctly in my preferences. I send an e-mail to myself and it arrived without the sender's e-mail address. I e-mailed another user and the e-mail addresses were shown both ways. No big deal, but I would like to know how to do this anonymously.

P.S. Do you want to be an ally in technical Wikipedia matters without having to do any heavy/controversial work on the Rind et al. page, and you don't know how to ask? Or you were asking that, and I was unable to see it that way? Or just unreceptive to your offer. If you did ask that more clearly, and I said "no, I cannot use you and I don't trust you." would you be unwilling to take NO as an answer? If something like that is going, we might be able to talk about that more, to work something out. --Radvo (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]