User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The “xt” template and MOSNUM numeric examples

Johnuniq, I have an idea for solving the “ugly scientific notation”-problem you saw on MOSNUM. See the thread here on WT:MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have seen your idea (pretty neat!) and will continue editing MOSNUM as discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Robotics Design Page

Dear Jonuniq, i would love to explain you everything about why the article is good for wikipedia to why i am putting it there, please send me an email at [address removed] with a link to your email, as i would rather communicate with you through there, problems and such don't look all that great on the articles talk page, considering its an encyclopedia. ---- Not logged in but signed Canadiansteve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.107.197 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine you are referring to my comment at Talk:Robotics Design#Concern?. I'm sorry that the following will sound brutal but it is intended simply as a frank statement (most talk here is pretty to-the-point). On your talk page there are three requests to sign your messages on talk pages by adding four tildes (after a space) on the last line of your message. When you click "Show preview" you will see that the four tildes are replaced with your user name and a timestamp. It's trivial, but I mention this because it is an indication that you do not have the time to absorb even that simple message, so you may not be receptive to more detailed information about writing articles. I know that above you mentioned not being logged on – sometimes we do that accidentally but in general you need to take the trouble to log on, particularly when you want to talk. You would also add the four tildes as a signature even if you were not logged on (it leaves a timestamp, and saves the system from having to add one for you, as you see above).
Communications on Wikipedia are in the open unless there is good reason to do otherwise. If you had some confidential information you wanted to discuss with someone, you could go to their user page or talk (discussion) page, then (in the sidebar) click "E-mail this user". However, many people here would not respond to an email if the message should have been posted on a talk page. Is there some reason you would not want to respond at Talk:Robotics Design? I will notice any reply on that page, or here, and am happy to offer any advice I can.
I have changed your comment to remove your email address because it is probably not a good idea to leave even a disposable address open to spam harvesting. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not worried about spam, i recieve hundreds of spam email daily and never read one, my junk filter works perfectly. If you'd rather me write here, absloutely no problem, i though it might be more efficient to make this a private conversation. Let me being with the page for ANAT technology. It was posted and deleted for being an ad. This page contains only technical information about the technology that allows the creation of durable self-reconfiguring robots, and mentions no products, but i'll give your volunteers the benefit of the doubt. This technology represents a signifigiant advance in robotics, because it allows robots to reconfigure to perform different tasks, such as switching production of goods in a factory. It is made to link to several pages in wikipedia including the list of invontors of modular robots, and is currently studied by ETS university in Quebec, as they own several of our robots for research and educational purposes. To be completely honest, i could keep writing about ANAT technolog until i develop carpal tunnel, but i initially posted the page and it was deleted, so if it isn't to presumptuous of me, id like to ask why shouldnt this technology be on wikipedia? Canadiansteve (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You have not mentioned any reason why you want to talk specifically to me, on my talk page. I don't have a particular problem with conversation here, but you may want to know that the correct procedure would be to communicate on the article talk page (and if there were no response in, say, two days, you might post on a relevant editor's talk page with a link to the article talk page). In this case, you are talking about a deleted page for a topic mentioned at Talk:Robotics Design. On that talk page, there is a red link to "ANAT Technology", and clicking that link shows that a particular administrator deleted the page for a particular reason (with links being given). You should spend some time reading those links, and try to see the problem from our point of view. I accept that you are sincerely trying to provide good information, and are a bit mystified as to why anyone would want to delete it. However, there really are hundreds of people who say they have the same good intentions and who create pages that are judged not suitable for an article every day (here is the current deletion log which includes many nonsense pages as well as unsuitable articles). It is best to prepare a reasonable amount of useful material before trying to create a page. Formatting is not a problem – you can just have paragraphs of text prepared with a simple text editor; someone will format the material within a day of it being posted. However, the text has to be suitable for an article (see the links on your talk page).
Above, you mention that the topic includes significant advances. You need reliable sources that are independent of the manufacturer to confirm that information (I never saw the deleted article, so do not know what it contained). I suggest you reply on Talk:Robotics Design and answer the questions I asked there. Suggestion: don't waste time wondering about the past or ETS university; just read the guidelines from the links on your talk page (why not get a student to do it?), then ask if you have a question about your proposed articles in the light of the policies and guidelines that exist for Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear johnuniq, thank you for your reply, i recently posted new links from reliable sources on the Robotics Design page, which will be linked to the ANAT technology page and others, i would have more, but i have no way of linking the television reports about the technology online (though they can be seen under the news tab at roboticsdesign.qc.ca). I recently wrote an article for ep&t magazine about the ANAT AMI-100 (industrial manipulator that replaces manual labor for manufacturing and assembly) which is to be published in their September issue, which has not yet been released, but is mentioned at http://ept.hotims.com/r5/search.asp?action=search&return_by_category=y under category 7-Displays. I have made several new pages for wikipedia, and i could show them to you to get your approval, but if this is not possible, i will wait for this article to come out as it will be easily viewable online and I'm hoping will be foolproof in keeping articles from deletion, as I really explain thoroughly what the technology is and is capable of. If you are able to help me, i would be most obliged to send you the articles (formatted for wikipedia) preferably to your email (i get a bit queasy thinking about the worldwide web reading discussion about me kicking and moaning to keep the article alive). One page for the ANATROLLER ARI-100 which was deleted was "userified" to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canadiansteve/ANATROLLER_ARI-100, and was initially made by a student (and translated, though it was deleted before i could put up the translation) and re-worded after the deletion by me. I would need your help in verifying the article to ensure it meets all guidelines, i have read them and do not find any discrepancies, as for notability, this products is notable because it is an entire mobile robot made from a single module that weighs 8kg and can carry 50kg, and can climb slopes and obstacles. This cleans the ducts that bring building air to breathe, and could just as easily become the smallest efficient EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) in the world. It can also remotely shift its shape and connect to identical mobile robots to form larger ones or be split in half to form the ARI-50. If you think that's notable (i do) check out the article, any problems tell me, if none im re-posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talkcontribs) 17:17, 18 September 2009

If are you here to help Wikipedia, you must take the time to learn some basics: You again failed to sign your above talk message, and you have not given a reason why you are talking to me rather than communicating at Talk:Robotics Design. Both of these points are trivial, but I mention them (again) because they indicate a problem – you will not be successful here unless you can communicate appropriately. As I explained, we communicate in the open and do not use email for issues such as this.
To avoid any misunderstanding, please note that I am just an editor who happened to comment on the article talk page: I am not an administrator and have no authority. Also, I am not familiar with what guidelines apply to an article about a product, such User:Canadiansteve/ANATROLLER_ARI-100. I see that you have posted messages at User talk:Alexf (the deleting administrator) who suggested peer review. I wonder if WT:WikiProject Robotics might be a better place to ask for advice. If you try this, you need to keep it short and to the point; do not regurgitate the history; state clearly what you want help with.
An article should satisfy the notability guidelines: a product would be notable if independent reliable sources have written about it. An excellent example of notability is BIXI which has been widely discussed. If a duct-cleaning robot is significant, independent reports should be available, and those reports need to be cited in an article on the robot. If such reports are not available, it may not be possible to establish that the product warrants an article. Note that we know that bad articles exist, but in accordance with WP:OSE we do not use them as a reason to justify new inappropriate articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

They are articles that explain what the technology is and how it can be used, and one of them is an international award won by the technology. If you make me explain you everything, expect sarcasm. Im doing my best to play along here, but i am in the habit of giving ridiculous answers to ridiculous questions. To be completely honest i completey and utterly doubt you read the links. Explain me what the links contain and you will have answered your question. I refuse to sign this post out of spite. Protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talkcontribs) 05:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have explained previously that the place to discuss the article is at Talk:Robotics Design. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

{xtc} substitute

John,

I (again) thanked you on WT:MOSNUM for your exceedingly meticulous work on WP:MOSNUM to give example text the “{{xt}}-treatment.” I have a work-around—in case you’re interested—to get an {xtc} treatment without the template, here on WT:MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. I replied at your MOSNUM link, and I'll have a look at MOS sometime to see if editing is needed there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced edit

Yes, indeed, it was a silly mistake :-| Thank you :-) --g (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry!

I'm sorry, I changed the Darwin article to prove to a friend that I could, and when I went back to change it, he hit alt+f4, and then my computer froze and the hour ended. I went to change it back later, but it seems you did it for me. Thank you! Also, my friend says that he will make a wiki account and start deleting articles. I am warning him against this, but he may do it anyway. :( I dont want to see wiki shut down because of some jerk like him. Is there anything that can be done?Mathdude101 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and welcome to Wikipedia! There are a lot of strange edits made, and most of them (at least on important articles) get cleaned up pretty quickly. Don't worry about your young friend because people usually grow out of that stage, and they certainly get blocked if they do more than a small amount of damage. If you wanted, and if you knew their user name, you could visit their user page (even if it does not exist) and click "User contributions" to see what changes they have made. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. By the way, this is a fairly serious place (an encyclopedia), and jokes and so on are not welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply on WT:MOSNUM

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at WT:MOSNUM.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Here at Update, from Greg L). Greg L (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Adaptation#Lead

-Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 05:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just replied there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Hi,

Regards this comment, I did not engage in original research, if you look at the BBC link in this version of the AAH (as well as on her own page) you will see that it is sourced. I could have chosen a variety of sources - nearly every book that discusses her and the AAH mentions three things - Welsh, female and screenwriter. It is not original research as it is a factual claim. The issue might perhaps be one of undue weight but given the large number of citations that mention these facts and their obvious impact on the status of the theory and her ability to comment on it, I think it has considerable merit to be pointed out. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To help keep relevant discussions together, I have responded at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis#Writer label. Johnuniq (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I've replied on both pages as well as left a note here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Donald Friend

I must ask you not to add material to this article at this time. Your addition is obviously highly controversial and not accepted by all editors - please aim for consensus on Talk beforehand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talkcontribs) 11:52, 26 September 2009

I have replied at Talk:Donald Friend. Johnuniq (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see history of discussion between Pico & myself at the Donald Friend Talk page. I have referred this article for comments from other editors.--Design (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in further comment from you at Talk:Donald Friend. Thanks.--Design (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been putting that off, but have responded now. Thanks for reminder. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NZonscreen

Oops. I've formatted the reference more appropriately. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

Hello, I think you may have commented on this matter in the past. You may wish to add your views to the RfC now under way at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This made me laugh

Are you are a Mossad agent too?[1] Fences&Windows 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! My payments don't seem to be coming through at the moment, so I have temporarily stopped looking at that article, but I'll have to return because it looks like it might be getting interesting. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I commented at WP:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (4th nomination). Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Euglena

Hi, Johnuniq, I know little about protists, but Advanced biology p. 471 says Euglena are found in marine & fresh water. However E. is a genus with multiple species, leavng the question of whether any species can live in both marine & fresh water. Algae and cyanobacteria in extreme environments pp. 67-68 says E. proxima lives in ditches, lakes and moderately salty water. I hope that helps. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

Oops

Thanks for catching my mistake ([2]). I should be careful not to knee-jerk revert IPs. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 07:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, sortly before your edit, I had spent several minutes finding and formatting a reference to restore the text deleted by the IP, and it was dumb luck that I then noticed that the text had been deleted because it was a duplicate. An edit summary would have helped. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom Dixon (industrial designer)

Information.pngHi Johnuniq/Archive 2! A biography which you have either created, contributed to, or edited, is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Some Facts related to the article “Dr Prabhat Das Foundation”:

Some Facts related to the article “Dr Prabhat Das Foundation”: I am surprised to see that some editors are pushing for a hasty deletion of this article. Before deleting we must do some research to find whether this topic is notable & the information is reliable or not. I have done some research & these are the findings:-

1) Notability: I am a native of Bihar, India, living in USA. My mother tongue is Hindi & I read Hindi newspapers daily. Though I am a fan of Wikipedia, this is my first contribution. I can well remember dozens of third party & reliable references related to this organization. Majority of natives of Bihar (with population of 50 million) are at least familiar with the name of this charity organization. This organization very well meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia.

Also, when I was going through this article I noted that some of important facts (that are supported by reliable, secondary sources) were deleted (why?) by the editor Cameron Scott. This organization has volunteers more than ten thousand (there is reference to an American newspaper front page article with this heading ), and this whole fact with its reference was deleted by this editor (later brought back by a contibutor). This seems inapropriate haste in deletion! Similarly he deleted the mention of the fact that more than 300 libraries-community centers are run by this organization! Cameron Scott should have put a ‘citation needed’ tag & should not have removed these important facts that are some proofs of its notability.

I have also visited the website of this organization & found that there are hundreds of reliable, secondary sources (mainly in Indian languages -Hindi , Urdu & Maithili- newspapers, perodicals, magazines etc. As a daily Hindi newspapers reader I could recognise several of them and they are real, reliable & from reputed (Hindi) publications.

2) Conflict of interest: One editor Atama, who is hastily pushing for its deletion, has posted some information regarding this article that are not correct. For example, to quote him, “per discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard it was established that this article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest with the intent to promote the organization.” I have reviewd the whole discussion & links with neutrality. This mentioned editor has noted “I, Prakashkanth (this is also my real name) …..am actively involved in this organization; but there is absolutely no conflict of interest as all the information added by me are facts, well referenced in this article & objectively verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.” This is not a proof of conflict of interest, especially when this contributor is not hiding any thing (not even his name!) & has no financial relation with this organization. The only thing is that probably he knows about this organization more than we know & is contributing this information to Wikipedia. For example, as citizen of India, if I contibute to the aricle related to India, it will not automatically prove that I have conflict of interest. In fact majority of the articles in Wikipedia are contibuted by people who are well familier with those topics. Reviewing all these facts I don’t think that this contibutor has any real conflict of interest.

3) Reliable, secondary sources: The English speaking editors of the Wikipedia should know that majority of people on our planet do not speak english. The mother tongue of about 500 million people is Hindi. If a source is in Hindi it does not make it less reliable! Comments by one editor who seems in very haste to delete this article ( Atama ) is surprizing “…scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned images…” He is stating that nobody can translate & understand Hindi! He is also implying that fraud is involved because he himself can not read Hindi. These statements by this editor questions his intention.

After checking the website of this organization I found that this is essentially an Indian organization NGO, though the founders are in USA, and it is also registered in USA. In fact this was very clear in this article till Cameron Scott deleted this basic information, (again, why?).

One of the editor who has written about this article just couple of days ago; -“But considering how long the article has been around, and how many editors have worked on it, I have the feeling that it would be rejected because the article can be "cleaned up".”—is now suddenly pushing for its deletion! (why?)

Wikipedia, though very popular in English speaking world is rarely used by Hindi speaking peoples. But that does not mean that Hindi or other non-English citations should be disregarded. And, if you search on google (the English language search engine) to find Hindi article you will certainly find none! I think that editors of Wikipedia should not have bias against non-English languages. --Barnabas2009 (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some Facts related to the article “Dr Prabhat Das Foundation”:

Some Facts related to the article “Dr Prabhat Das Foundation”: I am surprised to see that some editors are pushing for a hasty deletion of this article. Before deleting we must do some research to find whether this topic is notable & the information is reliable or not. I have done some research & these are the findings:-

1) Notability: I am a native of Bihar, India, living in USA. My mother tongue is Hindi & I read Hindi newspapers daily. Though I am a fan of Wikipedia, this is my first contribution. I can well remember dozens of third party & reliable references related to this organization. Majority of natives of Bihar (with population of 50 million) are at least familiar with the name of this charity organization. This organization very well meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia.

Also, when I was going through this article I noted that some of important facts (that are supported by reliable, secondary sources) were deleted (why?) by the editor Cameron Scott. This organization has volunteers more than ten thousand (there is reference to an American newspaper front page article with this heading ), and this whole fact with its reference was deleted by this editor (later brought back by a contibutor). This seems inapropriate haste in deletion! Similarly he deleted the mention of the fact that more than 300 libraries-community centers are run by this organization! Cameron Scott should have put a ‘citation needed’ tag & should not have removed these important facts that are some proofs of its notability.

I have also visited the website of this organization & found that there are hundreds of reliable, secondary sources (mainly in Indian languages -Hindi , Urdu & Maithili- newspapers, perodicals, magazines etc. As a daily Hindi newspapers reader I could recognise several of them and they are real, reliable & from reputed (Hindi) publications.

2) Conflict of interest: One editor Atama, who is hastily pushing for its deletion, has posted some information regarding this article that are not correct. For example, to quote him, “per discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard it was established that this article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest with the intent to promote the organization.” I have reviewd the whole discussion & links with neutrality. This mentioned editor has noted “I, Prakashkanth (this is also my real name) …..am actively involved in this organization; but there is absolutely no conflict of interest as all the information added by me are facts, well referenced in this article & objectively verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.” This is not a proof of conflict of interest, especially when this contributor is not hiding any thing (not even his name!) & has no financial relation with this organization. The only thing is that probably he knows about this organization more than we know & is contributing this information to Wikipedia. For example, as citizen of India, if I contibute to the aricle related to India, it will not automatically prove that I have conflict of interest. In fact majority of the articles in Wikipedia are contibuted by people who are well familier with those topics. Reviewing all these facts I don’t think that this contibutor has any real conflict of interest.

3) Reliable, secondary sources: The English speaking editors of the Wikipedia should know that majority of people on our planet do not speak english. The mother tongue of about 500 million people is Hindi. If a source is in Hindi it does not make it less reliable! Comments by one editor who seems in very haste to delete this article ( Atama ) is surprizing “…scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned images…” He is stating that nobody can translate & understand Hindi! He is also implying that fraud is involved because he himself can not read Hindi. These statements by this editor questions his intention.

After checking the website of this organization I found that this is essentially an Indian organization NGO, though the founders are in USA, and it is also registered in USA. In fact this was very clear in this article till Cameron Scott deleted this basic information, (again, why?).

One of the editor who has written about this article just couple of days ago; -“But considering how long the article has been around, and how many editors have worked on it, I have the feeling that it would be rejected because the article can be "cleaned up".”—is now suddenly pushing for its deletion! (why?)

Wikipedia, though very popular in English speaking world is rarely used by Hindi speaking peoples. But that does not mean that Hindi or other non-English citations should be disregarded. And, if you search on google (the English language search engine) to find Hindi article you will certainly find none! I think that editors of Wikipedia should not have bias against non-English languages. --Barnabas2009 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

I have reversed your revert on Carl Sagan. The section is relevant and sourced, per Wikipedia guidelines. Further explanation made on talk page of the article, where you may weigh in on why you believe it should not be included. 204.17.31.126 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Carl Sagan#Viral Video. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone

Further information about the "first citizen journalist" claim has become available, and I am not satisfied it is a valid claim. Because of that, and as I mentioned in the comments below my 'vote', I've changed my opinion to 'delete' on that AfD. Since you cited me in your 'keep vote', I wanted to inform you of my change in position. Cheers! Prodego talk 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented at the discussion (am sticking with "keep"). Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings.

Hi.

Since you are one of the people who voted in favor of my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in this discussion on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.

If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I commented on your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

advice for the cultural sector

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For your assistance in creating WP:GLAM, thank you Witty Lama 15:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Witty Lama: My efforts were pretty modest, particularly compared with your work. Johnuniq (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

talk:Mimicry

I have initiated a discussion & proposal on the first para of the intro to Mimicry. It would benefit from your special talents... Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just added it to my watch list, and will have a look within a day. Johnuniq (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jenna Elfman

Just so you know, this is the type of behavior and comments that brought our "inappropriate messages" to that editor. Throw in calling a revert "vandalism", a 3RR violation, gross incivility and profanity, rudeness and blatant personal attacks that he only removed after a few hours. But you know, we were inappropriate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. I have left a message at User talk:Man It's So Loud In Here recording my opposition to that very inappropriate comment (and while I did see that the user was using uncivil language earlier, I did not realize how many examples there were since I was really only interested in the substantive issue regarding the article). Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It was basically like that from the start. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on ConnectomeBot

I opened a discussion at the VPR (Village Pump Proposals) and advertised it at the External Links Notice Board about a bot you commented on at RFBA, ConnectomeBot. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made a preliminary comment at VPR. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dane Cook

You mentioned two other articles as being advertisement in the Globo Thermo Tour 2009 AFD. Are those possible candidates for deletion? Because I'd love nothing more than to get rid of those articles too. PÆonU (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes (by listing them, I rather hoped someone would take a hint and nominate them). I have added the two I mentioned to my watch list and will notice an AFD. I normally avoid entertainment stuff because I have noticed that extremely dubious articles seem to be the norm in that area, but these appear unduly promotional to me.
The AFD is here. BTW I don't think the "2nd nomination" is correct; a prod is not an AFD, and I think this is the first AFD, so the "2nd nomination" should not have been used. I doubt if it matters, and I would not try to change it now. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and nominate them. For some reason, Wikipedia wouldn't let me create the AFD without the "2nd nomination." The prod counted as the first nomination, but I don't get why. PÆonU (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a damn shame. Everybody wants to keep those two articles. I think they must be stupid Dane Cook fanbois. PÆonU (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been away and won't have any meaningful time for a while yet, but I just had a quick look. How irritating, but that it is why I normally ignore AFDs for entertainment trivia. I'll see if I can confirm the suggestions that it is standard for albums like these to have a page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have now found WP:NALBUMS which includes the suggestion that if a notable musician releases an official album, then the album is probably notable and should have an article. Presumably, the same advice would apply to a comedian. Accordingly, I think it might be best just to let the AFDs for the albums lapse. Sorry that I misled you earlier. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert Summaries

What I've learned this week, from you and others, is that vandalism should never be labeled as such even when it's obvious. I seriously doubt most vandals ever bother to check a page's history, but it's probably a good policy to deny them any recognition. I must say that it really bothers me the amount of criticism I've received for my attempts to fight vandalism (even when it's on my own talk page). These have all been honest attempts to do the right thing. Jwesley78 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

fancorepodcast

Thanks for adding the links summary, as I missed removing one. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure, I'm actually unhappy that lately I haven't been able to pay much attention to WT:WikiProject Spam. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

EE-Berkeley_1968 (Easwaran) photograph on Passage Meditation page

Hello, Johnuniq. I saw that you just deleted the photograph file [[File:EE_Berkeley_1968.JPG]] from the article on Passage Meditation. I want to understand your position and see if some fixes might be possible. First, I couldn't quite understand the question you put in the change log, which read "(rv: we don't insert images with copyright notices; is their any verification of the subject of the photo?)". What is your question about verification? If you go to the page for the file, you will see that it has a template for unfree content, which gives background about the photograph. Basically, the person in the photograph died 10 years ago, and the photograph is drawn from the website of an organization that he founded (follow the link on the file's info page to: [3], and scroll down a tiny bit). Perhaps redundantly (?), the creator of the photo file (not me) says he has an email from the organization that gives permission. Does this address your question about verification? Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Second, regarding your statement that "we don't insert images with copyright notices", I was not the person who originally inserted the photo into the article. Perhaps he will continue this discussion with you, since he may have studied any relevant Wikipedia guidelines more than I have (which guidelines cover copyright notices for valid unfree content?). BUT... is it your view that if it's OK for the picture to be used (as valid unfree content, with an acceptable rationale), then it should simply be used without copyright notice? Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Passage Meditation#EE_Berkeley_1968 photo. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Johnuniq, thank you for your input a couple of weeks ago about the 1968 Easwaran photo, and its use in the Passage Meditation article. If you've got a moment, I was hoping you might weigh in on the short discussion at Talk:Passage_Meditation#Response_to_Request_for_Justification_of_Changes about the possibility of reinserting the photo into the article. In a nutshell, I reinserted the photo with a caption that 1. Omitted "copyright" and also 2. Omitted statement about "believed to be the first meditation course offered in at a major western university", and 3. DID include a mention of the course title and number (citing a published source) (all three as per your suggestion 2 weeks ago). So the caption I inserted, which was reverted by User:Verbal, only said that it's a certain person (Easwaran) teaching a specific class at a particular point in time.
Now there hardly seems anything extravagant about such a claim. The source is to a book published by the organization that Easwaran founded, but for such an uncontroversial claim, about Easwaran himself, I suggest that is unproblematic and reliable (would you agree?) (the specter of needing to dig up original documentation would feel to me like a disruptive demand for busywork - would I be wrong to feel that way?). In light of these considerations, I'd contend that the picture can be reinserted with the caption as described above, as I did on 24 November. But User:Verbal, who has also been editing the page (almost always reversions of various kinds), has claimed that there is something unreliable about how the photo is sourced. But he's given no arguments, evidence, or noncategorical explanations -- merely made an assertion -- and he removed the revised caption, on the basis of a supposed lack of reliable sourcing. So it would seem a matter of WP:civility for him to explain, rather than merely reassert his position, but (as is common with him in my experience), on the discussion he invited in response to his reversion, he has merely reasserted his position. I would be inclined to go ahead and simply reinsert the photo, but if he reverts again, without further explanation (merely reassertions), this could invite an ugly edit war. Perhaps if you could weigh in, as a 3rd party, this would be helpful to avoid an awkward situation. Frankly, it strikes me that this photo is at least as well sourced as many in use by Wikipedia. As an aside, in the past I have met many people who attended that class, and would vouch for the picture. It's also now part of the organization's press kit HERE(lower right corner of page). In view of the fact that there hardly seems anything controversial anywhere, shouldn't we use WP:Common sense and insert the picture? Or if there's a problem somewhere, how might we get beyond obstructionism, and constructively problem-solve to allow inclusion of this simple picture from a press-kit? Thanks in advance for your input (note: you might want to insert comments on the discussion page right after my sentence that "it seems to be very appropriate to restore the photo to the article"). Health Researcher (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any time at the moment. Will look in next day or two. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Health Researcher (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Huxley

A contributor has placed flags on Thomas Henry Huxley, and I would like your opinion on their validity. An article with 132 genuine references is not usually accused of lacking neutrality; the fact is the man was both controversial and successful, and the article has to reflect this. Actually, some of the original content has already been hived off, and what remains I believe to be necessary to a rounded portrait of the man. Of course, I accept that I'm too close to the subject, so once again I ask for your time and help. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a really excellent article, and I see you have been a major contributor for some years: magnificent work. I have responded at Talk:Thomas Henry Huxley where I have expressed some reservations about the style. This is another interesting problem because it's not clear how one could "improve" the text. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Free per click

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Free per click, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free per click. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ravensfire (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I supported delete. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure what you were hoping for, but I have added my thoughts. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, what I was hoping for was that people would respond early in the week :) But I liked your comments, we can use that. - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

HTML comments

Yes you are right it is an AWb feature. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Incorrect label of "vandalism"

If it truly is never useful, as you said to me, then perhaps you could leave a similar message for the veteran editor who I incorrectly labeled as a vandal. One pertaining to the edit summary he was perfectly willing to leave for me, even though he shortly reverted it as an overreaction. Still, his edit summary does all the things that you just pointed out to me as being the wrong thing to do (and he's like an administrator of apparently high rank, so if anyone should be scolded...) --Neptunerover (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page (which I will watch for the next few days in case you want to reply there). Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No need to for you to watch it; I'll let you know here if I have a reply to your response. I do lots of tweaking there. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"MyFunLine"

Darn good catch! It was a blatant sock of a user I'd blocked for promoting the same thing. I've blocked the sock and protected the title. Thank you for alerting me to that! Very sneaky of him to post the spam on his talk page and not the article space. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)