User:JohnLloydScharf/Archive of 09/02/2011
RFC/U discussion concerning you (JohnLloydScharf)
[edit]Hello, JohnLloydScharf. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JohnLloydScharf, where you may want to participate. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would really benefit the discussion if you would post a response at the RfC. We just want to help. :) Ishdarian 05:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Concerns
[edit]This template has useful information about policies. I emphasize here that your messages were neutral and that only their quantity may raise a question about a technical violation of the canvassing policy. (I see no reason to suspect that you chose recipients based on any knowledge of our potential contributions to the article debate: I underline my ignorance on this question below!)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA). While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.
Hi John Lloyd!
You should avoid "spamming" many users with the same message when you have a content conflict with other editors. A few well-chosen messages to the relevant projects' talk pages should suffice to attract competent editors to help resolve conflicts or to help refocus the talk page on improving the article.
I use this template because it has helpful links to relevant policy, and I am sorry that its wording may be harsh.
Your message was neutral and I am not accusing you of bad-faith. (I am flattered that you think that I might be helpful on this question of genetics: My fiancee, who is a geneticist, has a better understanding of my ignorance!) It is just that you should avoid mass copying of messages.
Please contact me with an individual message if I may be of help in the future, and I would do my best to help.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am trying NOT to have a different message for everyone. I do not even state my position on the issue. I cannot have a more neutral request than the one I make. Please invite your fiancee to participate in arriving at a consensus. I need to have someone who has done research rather than just taking classes in it to resolve this issue. John Lloyd Scharf 10:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I emphasized my agreement that you left only a neutral message, in good faith (but on too many pages imho). Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. I am not an administrator. I would suggest striking through your notice that non-administrators should not post here, to which others have objected,
like this. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, I am not overworking that or I would have deleted your remarks. Don't worry too much about it. It will be okay. The point was made before all that. I am not posting anything I have not seen on the pages of administrators. The number of pages I posted on is a judgement call based on previous responsiveness to other questions and the need for multidisciplinary review. By the way, I also canvas the person I live with on a regular basis. My degree is in public service, but hers is a masters in education and biology. She is handy to bounce ideas off, particularly in the area of evolutionary biology. John Lloyd Scharf 11:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 4twenty42o (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not an admin and the only thing I can see you referring to as a threat was a vague insinuation that I don't mind telling you where to go if you continue wasting your efforts with me. Don't keep posturing on about my etiquette after that protracted edit war you participated in. Your first mistake was thinking that I was remotely interested in the reason you were edit warring and of course presuming to tell me my business. A simple acknowledgement would have sufficed. Your second was assuming that after I told you the first time in my own polite way I didn't care, I would indeed care if you explained it in a different way. Your assumptions seem to be causing you a great deal of worry concerning me. I would urge you to learn a little bit more about editing here, focus on our guidelines and policies. Specifically regarding WP:SPA, WP:3rr and WP:EDITWAR. If you have the time there is always WP:TMM my personal favorite. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Then, I can ignore your "vague" threats. Your behavior and attempt to intimidate with personal attacks has been reported. They are in violation of WP regardless of who you are. Your "urges" do not impress me. Further violations from you will be treated in the same manner. Stay away from me. Your "warning" was a case of impersonating an Administrator. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- You may act how you choose, just expect action in kind. And I have in no way misrepresented myself nor my status on Wikipedia at any time. You are of course welcome to report me to the proper venue if you feel I done the opposite. Good luck with that. Just my opinion of course but your behavior speaks for itself. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You misrepresented yourself by making an officious warning. Your denial is not accepted. Your response is more harassment since I told you not to post on my page. JohnLloydScharf (talk)
If you are not and administrator, keep your comments on the Article Discussion [Talk] Page
[edit]The comments by 4twenty42o were an obvious attempt to pretend to be an administrator by another user.
Any post on this page rather than as an administrator will be considered an obvious attempt to pass yourself off as an administrator and reported.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Every talk page is owned by the community (no user owns a talk page), and other editors cannot be banned from leaving comments, including comments which are warnings. That particularly applies for standard warnings, such as a message with regard to edit warring. An editor is entitled to remove warnings, but that's it. Given that an admin protected Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) with edit summary "Protected Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA): edit warring", it seems fair to conclude that edit warring was occurring—normally in such a case, each editor who has participated is blocked for 24 hours. It is standard that editors leave other editors warnings; as with every editor action, sometimes those warnings are appropriate and sometimes they are not. If a warning appears unwarranted, just remove it (and warnings can be removed, even if they are appropriate, although it is best to consider the collaborative nature of the community and not make a point of repeatedly removing comments without responding) . Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
3RR exemptions
[edit]
The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:
- Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
- Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
- Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts.
My reversions fit those exemptions from being counted as a revert.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Threats and vulgarity are not collaboration. I have moved this comment from the end, but I do not understand the point. This has nothing to do with that page. It has to do with a user claiming authority and threatening. If this is considered standard, then it needs to stop immediately. It fosters an Old Boy system and allows the abuse of one user by another. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you thought these signs and messages are inappropriate, perhaps you should be more collaborative with Beeblebrox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeblebrox/signs
At this point, with no clear lines of authority and the allowing of threats, I have made a decision:
Multiple messages
[edit]Please stop posting multiple messages to multiple locations. I just removed your message at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) because that page is for a totally different purpose, and because it is not acceptable to post your problem to multiple venues. Disruptive editing will require intervention, so please just stop. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I left an appropriate message of concern about multiple postings, which John Lloyd has acknowledged, so I believe this was a one-time issue needing no further action. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- He was objecting to putting it on the Village Pump, so I must have misunderstood what you meant when you wrote,"If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump...." The page needs expert advise and I posted to those who I considered experts-those with degrees in genetics, molecular biology, statistics, probability, consensus decision-making, et cetera. Feel free to stop the disruptive editing of J1 Haplogroup by sock puppets who do not sign in. John Lloyd Scharf 11:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what was meant in a suggestion to post to the village pump, but the options are at WP:Village pump (none look relevant to me). Questions about topics (not disagreements between editors) can be asked at WP:Reference desk (in the "Science" section). However, a post there would have to be a genuine question seeking scientific information. If there is a disagreement regarding an article, discussion starts at the article talk page. Neutral messages asking for opinions can be added to the talk page of any of the WP:WikiProjects that are listed on the talk page of the article. After that, it's dispute resolution. One large problem is that the discussion at Talk:Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) is too chaotic and long, and I do not see anywhere with a clear and concise statement of a problem. It might help to draft something here (in a new section on this user talk page): link to the article like this: Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) (edit this section to see the wikitext). Identify one problem in the map, and provide a short statement of what the map currently shows, and what it should show, and why. Provide a clear reference in support (not just a link, but some way to find the information at the link; perhaps a short quote). Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what was meant in a suggestion to post to the village pump, but the options are at WP:Village pump (none look relevant to me). Questions about topics (not disagreements between editors) can be asked at WP:Reference desk (in the "Science" section). However, a post there would have to be a genuine question seeking scientific information. If there is a disagreement regarding an article, discussion starts at the article talk page. Neutral messages asking for opinions can be added to the talk page of any of the WP:WikiProjects that are listed on the talk page of the article. After that, it's dispute resolution. One large problem is that the discussion at Talk:Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) is too chaotic and long, and I do not see anywhere with a clear and concise statement of a problem. It might help to draft something here (in a new section on this user talk page): link to the article like this: Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) (edit this section to see the wikitext). Identify one problem in the map, and provide a short statement of what the map currently shows, and what it should show, and why. Provide a clear reference in support (not just a link, but some way to find the information at the link; perhaps a short quote). Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- He was objecting to putting it on the Village Pump, so I must have misunderstood what you meant when you wrote,"If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump...." The page needs expert advise and I posted to those who I considered experts-those with degrees in genetics, molecular biology, statistics, probability, consensus decision-making, et cetera. Feel free to stop the disruptive editing of J1 Haplogroup by sock puppets who do not sign in. John Lloyd Scharf 11:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- The question was in regard to finding another option to perceived "canvasing." If you are an administrator, you need to deal with the sock puppet, 217.137.120.107, who has been engaging in a personal attack, ie:
- So take your self contradictory claims and slap yourself with it,if you could not see how your statements entirely contradict Hassan .et.al paper. I have no confidence that you be able to understand the complex and intrigued true essence of genetics. It is very strange that a crucial and important subject such as genetics is actually been studied, lead and monopolize by group of buffoons.
- "I am not sure if you can help me out with the following question. I have been unsuccessfully with wrestling myself as to which is the funnier statement,to prove the unverifiable common contemporary jewish(whom are converted goyim) ancestory from one biblical mythical man named " Israel the myth" or placing confidence in your self contradictory claims?
It is the same person who keeps rolling back to the map and rolling back the tag for NPOV, but see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)#Response
- He has some issue with anything he sees as Jewish and calls those who disagree with him "bafoons." I suppose it is at least participation. I have asked for some edits by the administrator who locked it down. No help. I have been on topic and given logical arguments trying to get some consensus. I have invited those with expertise. At this point, you hope I will just go away rather than dealing with this childish behavior. It reflects on the administrators and WP when this is allowed to go on for weeks. I am not going tag the article again. You and Beeblebrox have been informed of the situation in detail, it is now your responsibility. I am done at this level. I hold you two responsible for their behavior. John Lloyd Scharf 12:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you were addressing me, no, I am not an administrator. Re the IP you mention: a link to their contributions is done like this: Special:Contributions/217.137.120.107. That shows their interest in Talk:Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA), but as I mentioned, the discussion on that page is far too jumbled to be digestible. Of course I only read a very small amount of the talk page, but enough to see that Andrew Lancaster is providing good advice about how Wikipedia works—please slow down, read and digest what he has been saying. I forgot to mention that the place to ask questions about how to do things at Wikipedia (e.g. what noticeboard to use) is at WP:HELPDESK. Again, that is not the place to discuss any actual problems—only to ask about how problems are handled. To make any progress, a concise and sourced summary of the problem will be required. Re the quote above: that's not bad enough to be regarded as an "attack"—while not ideal and rather confused, the wording would need to be more directly aimed at a particular editor to be taken as an attack. It is best to focus on one issue at a time, and what matters is the article. So I suggest forgetting about whether multiple messages were canvasing, or whether an IP has a problem: find one place to specify what the problem that you see is, and provide links to that location at any other place (such as a WikiProject talk page) where you might need to refer to the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you were addressing me, no, I am not an administrator. Re the IP you mention: a link to their contributions is done like this: Special:Contributions/217.137.120.107. That shows their interest in Talk:Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA), but as I mentioned, the discussion on that page is far too jumbled to be digestible. Of course I only read a very small amount of the talk page, but enough to see that Andrew Lancaster is providing good advice about how Wikipedia works—please slow down, read and digest what he has been saying. I forgot to mention that the place to ask questions about how to do things at Wikipedia (e.g. what noticeboard to use) is at WP:HELPDESK. Again, that is not the place to discuss any actual problems—only to ask about how problems are handled. To make any progress, a concise and sourced summary of the problem will be required. Re the quote above: that's not bad enough to be regarded as an "attack"—while not ideal and rather confused, the wording would need to be more directly aimed at a particular editor to be taken as an attack. It is best to focus on one issue at a time, and what matters is the article. So I suggest forgetting about whether multiple messages were canvasing, or whether an IP has a problem: find one place to specify what the problem that you see is, and provide links to that location at any other place (such as a WikiProject talk page) where you might need to refer to the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- He has some issue with anything he sees as Jewish and calls those who disagree with him "bafoons." I suppose it is at least participation. I have asked for some edits by the administrator who locked it down. No help. I have been on topic and given logical arguments trying to get some consensus. I have invited those with expertise. At this point, you hope I will just go away rather than dealing with this childish behavior. It reflects on the administrators and WP when this is allowed to go on for weeks. I am not going tag the article again. You and Beeblebrox have been informed of the situation in detail, it is now your responsibility. I am done at this level. I hold you two responsible for their behavior. John Lloyd Scharf 12:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- You are just another editor with opinions, but no authority to change the header on this page with a personal attack like "remove inappropriate message and images, and comment that other editors cannot be banned from leaving warnings)." I will therefor treat your advice accordingly and dismiss it. You violate WP policies have have personal interpretations inconsistent with them. *Your editing of this talk page was inappropriate. DO NOT DO IT AGAIN.
- Your advice regarding Andrew Lancaster and the sock puppet 217.137.120.107 new accounts to avoid detection and logging out to make problematic edits as an IP. is not acceptable. Deleting my comment on the Village Pump should have been left to an Administrator. It was inappropriate and should have been discussed with me first. I do not accept your concept of the use of that page as a self-appointed police. Imagine if I began doing that to your comments.
John Lloyd Scharf 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Use Wikiprojects
[edit]Hi JohnLloydScharf,
I can't see whether anyone's already mentioned this to you, but if you want to attract contributors with particular expertise, rather than message several dozen contributors individually, it's far better to use Wikiprojects. For example, Talk:Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) lists four associated wikiprojects. Each has its own talk page, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics. You could post a brief message to each of those four talk pages, containing a section link to a summary of the problem at Talk:Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). That way you can attract a wider audience than by contacting individuals, plus you won't annoy anyone (some people consider mass postings to user talk pages a form of spam).
One other small point – it's helpful to other contributors if your signature includes links to your user and talk pages; see WP:SIGLINK.
Anyway, I'm sorry I don't have time to be more helpful right now, but I see User:Genie has responded.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now that Kiefer.Wolfowitz had already mentioned Wikiprojects... I overlooked the message on such a busy talk page. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This requires a consensus. I used several Wikiprojects to locate those who are qualified for the areas of research and statistics / math this needs. If you have a contribution to make, please do it in the Discussions section of the Article page in question. Reviewing comments should be made on that page. John Lloyd Scharf 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Bottom line-The Map is wrong and not Verifiable
[edit]BOTTOM LINE-the Map is wrong:
- 35x73.4%=26.005 or 26 J1-Khartoum Students
- 35x17.1%= 5.985 or 6 J1-Arabic
- 61x04.9%= 2.989 or 3 J1-Nilo-Saharan
________________________
- 131x26.7%= 34.979 or 35 J1 total
- "We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan...Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan."
- 445x34.4%=153.08 E Haplogroup
Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. John Lloyd Scharf 10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello - I removed your addition to the above place as it is not the correct place to resolve issues about sourcing or reliability of information. Also, the file you refer to is in fact a Commons file, not a Wikipedia file - I suggest the best place to discuss its use here would be on the talkpages of the articles it is used in, or a relevant Wikiproject. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please replace it or explain in detail why it is not. This is the fourth or fifth time I have posted an issue where the issue was deleted and a recommendation has been made to go to and then the recommended area has been deleted. The issue is the personal attacks as well as the article, by both named users and sock puppets. The issue involves an editor. Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The other issues I have addressed with members of the respective Wiki Projects. If the file, which is being used in a Wikipedia article, is not subject to its sanctioning, then they do not belong on Wikipedia. John Lloyd Scharf 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)