User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 8

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

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 14:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 October 9, 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)

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)

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)

Stop teasing. What is your agenda?

Johnuniq: You posted to Rind et al. Controversy:

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)

Sorry Radvo but this has escalated above my pay grade, and my response will be at ANI, but I will make two brief points here: First, there has been a massive communication problem, and my efforts have been misinterpreted. Second, it is not possible to send anonymous email except by making a throwaway email account used for no other purpose, inserting that email address in your Wikipedia preferences, and using only a web interface to send mail (if you use client software on your computer to send, the recipient will receive your IP address in the email header). If editor A emails editor B, B learns A's email address. If B replies by email, A learns B's address. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue resolved: ANI permalink (Radvo has an arbcom indef block). Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Kitties are cute but impatient. You are possibly cute and certainly patient. Thanks on behalf of all, or many, of us. Things don't always work out, but it's always worth trying.

Drmies (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am surprisingly touched. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't be surprised--you're a nice guy. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, BeCritical 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

GeoSurf

Hello John, On December 18th, 2011 you added back a link that I added to "GeoSurf" definition (you wrote - This is not a link spam GeoSurf is based on GeoEdge. It is like a link to "open office" in the "MS office") - since then our link was removed again & again, and when I try to add it back I'm been flagged as a spammer. This is really frustrating since GeoEdge is indeed the leader in this space and was simply copied by GeoSurf…if you could help us to bring this link back again that would be highly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.161.235 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite right. On December 13 I reverted an edit—I removed an external link that had been added to a couple of articles. On December 18, the same IP undid my edit with an edit summary like what you wrote above. The above message is from a completely different IP, yet seems to want to add the same link (which apparently another editor removed again). In general, proxy servers can be useful but those using them need to be aware that doing so creates distrust. Please just explain at Talk:GeoSurf (click "new section" at the top of that page) what you want to do (add an external link), and why that link would assist the article, given the WP:EL guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

SkyCable

Hi, I would like to seek your help regarding the article SkyCable. User Webwires who I think the long-term editor and maintainer of the article is insisting that the page is for the cable TV brand. But don't you think it is better [for Wikipedia] if we relegate the article into the company ones and for all? Instead of the cable TV brand, we could assign it to the company and moved skycable, skybroadband, etc... into sub articles. Also a concern of mine is the tone of the page. Obviously Wikipedia is not a directory nor a place to advertise a cable service, don't you think we should make the article more encyclopedic? Thank you. I hope we could make Wikipedia a better place. -My Page (Contact me) 13:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see I was involved with something there in May/June 2010. I've put it back on my watchlist, but I might not be of much help as I'm busy elsewhere (and can't investigate anything now). There does not seem to be anything recent on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Left you a note

I left you a note at Talk:Hugh "Skip" McGee III Ramaksoud2000 (Did I make a mistake?) 23:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dick Smith - honors

Johnuniq, noticed you removed my addition to this page for the very valid reason that there was no citation provided. Forgive my newbie inexperience. Dick as indeed been made a consulting professor at Stanford. perhaps you could add the citation as follows:

http://dicksmithpopulation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Dick-Smith-Letter-of-Appointment-as-Consulting-Professor-at-Stanford-University2.pdf

Snasht (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention (and sorry about your rough introduction to Wikipedia). For your info, while there are "correct" procedures to format references, an editor does not need to worry about them, particularly when new. Just put the URL, perhaps in brackets, following the text added to the article. Someone will clean it up with the proper formatting in due course. In this case, there is a bit of a problem with the source. I understand that we can completely rely on what Dick Smith says, but there really should be independent verification of a fact like this (particularly a surprising fact—how did Smith come to Stanford's attention? why is there no explanation of the honor? can we be sure no one is playing a joke on Smith?). Wikipedia has lots of articles about very dubious people, and we certainly should not accept anything they say about themselves on their own website, and the same principle applies to all articles. I have started a discussion at Talk:Dick Smith (entrepreneur)#Consulting professor. Feel free to join in (although there might not be much response as I'm not sure how many people follow the page; I'm watching it after cleaning up some junk added by a vandal to a few pages). Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Johnuniq, there is no question this cited letter from Stanford is genuine. I have seen it with my own eyes and have seen it confirmed by email from Professor Paul Ehrlich at Stanford. The Dean of Science, Richard P. Saller has also confirmed the appointment, which is honorary in nature and based on Smith's long efforts on behalf of conservation causes, and his patronage of the Australian Geographic Society and Australian Skeptics I hardly think it is for editors of Wikipedia to demand explanations for facts they subjectively find 'particularly surprising' when documentary evidence is supplied i.e. the Dean's signed letter. As a primary source, this would surpass value as verification of the vast majority of Wiki entries.Most after all are nothing more than unverified media citations. My suggestion- respectfully - is that we return the original entry, with the link to the document and I'm sure Professor Saller or Professor Ehrlich will readily respond if they believe an error, exaggeration or mistatement has been made. It would seem far more 'particularly surprising' that an individual as prominent as Mr Smith would participate in some kind of fraud when the source is made though his personal web site, would you not agree? Snasht (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The place for a discussion about the article is at Talk:Dick Smith (entrepreneur)#Consulting professor, so I will copy your comment to there, and reply. I will mention here that, while it does not matter, it is standard to indent replies by inserting a colon before the text (and two colons for two indents, and so on, as I have done). Also, when adding a signature, on the last line of your comment, add an extra space and then the four tildes. This is described at WP:TP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Naveen Jain

Thanks for stepping in. Until we can get his behavior under control, I simply don't feel safe contributing to the article in a meaningful way. I've listed many NPOV concerns in the past, and have been harassed as a result. Most of the problems have not been addressed. Many have been made worse. --Ronz (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Naveen Jain. This needs to stop, and I do not anticipate any need to further discuss an article here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it should have stopped last year. Why didn't it? --Ronz (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Referer

I moved the pages because referer is the spelling defined in specification and is also recognised by Wiktionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A:-)Brunuś (talkcontribs) 18:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about articles should be on the article talk page, as I mentioned at your talk (where I have added some more information). Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELN

Okay, if you think that's more appropriate, thanks :) Number36 (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AN

Haha, you're welcome! And thank you for leaving that note, one of many heartening posts I've read. I don't particularly care for being trouted--but certainly there are editors from whom I can accept it more readily than from others. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I regret I haven't been able do much here lately, but at least I can occasionally speak up for good people. Good grief there is, shall we say, a wide range of talent among editors. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
And now ANI, the case of Youreallycan--I don't know who's out of step anymore. Rob certainly was with that outburst. Where I'm coming from, accusing someone of having a "queer agenda" and editing according to it is certainly not OK. I'm probably out of step, since I wish to condemn but not punish (to put it in somewhat inappropriate terms). John, I'll tell you something--it's like I can't get anything right these days, and whatever I do I run into conflict and things that are, well, wrong. I think you and I and a few others should sit around with beers and cigars and talk about everything else. All the best, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you noticed my "out of step" comment at ANI—there's quite a lot of turmoil there. I have been resisting urges to post more personal observations, namely that the claims of homophobia might be due to YRC's campaign against the nonsense at Campaign for "santorum" neologism. I have commented once or twice about that misuse of Wikipedia, but in typical fashion YRC has persisted over an extended period (which would drive me crazy). The enthusiasts don't like it—of course YRC went over-the-top with his edits to the article, but the hypocrisy of many responses to that incident was irritating. Welcome to the future of Wikipedia, as more and more groups take advantage of anyone can edit, and take the time to do so while not obviously breaching policies. I think you received solid support (despite a few excited and repeated claims), so there is nothing to be concerned about in that regard. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I feel out of step myself. I used to be on Cirt's side in the santorum debate until it got well out of hand, and recently (as a spin-off of the YRC case) I let myself get dragged into it on Commons where I nominated his images of santorum-inspired cocktails (no joke) for deletion. What you signaled in your comments about this case, I agree--the ease with which things spin out of control, for instance. All this is really taking the fun out editing. Another example: I received an email message from an editor who was most inspiring until he got (rightfully) blocked, scolding me for my cowardice (the ancient cry of censorship) in the Trayvon Martin case. I finally blocked his email address.

I'm going to take a little break from Wikipedia. Today I'm going shopping with the kids and we'll be in the pool if you need us. This coming week, I'm going to read books and teach Dante's Inferno. I'll be back at some point, no doubt. If you need me to block someone unjustly and out of the blue, or if you want something deleted but you have no valid arguments, you can always email me and one of my admin socks will gladly oblige. Have a great weekend, Drmies (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yuck. I had a very quick look at commons, and I need a wikibreak after seeing that crap. What monstrous hypocrisy from idiots complaining about your "use of profanity"! I normally quickly switch off any media talking about things like Santorum, but I happened to hear a brief report with a statement he made recently (not the "ni" one), and it was a lot worse than I had remembered. So I can kind-of understand why WMF projects are being used by POV pushers to attack him, but what is harder to figure out is why the community (or the WMF for that matter) tolerates it. Commons could be shut down and replaced with a system run by two WMF staffers and some volunteers approved by the WMF, and the free-speech advocates would just have to find another website to take over. Best wishes, and you will be welcomed on return. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Trolling (Internet)

Sir, you removed my edit to the above page, where I added among others, links to www.trollnetwork.com and www.trollingacademy.org You say these were fun sites. I take this as an attack on my character as it is suggesting that I edited that page to cause mischief. I am a serious Wikipedian, and I think you should retract your reversion of my post. What do you mean by "fun" in any case? The first link is run by someone who has been writing about trolling for decades, and the second is run by someone regularly quoted in the press. They both deserve to be mentioned as they are dedicated to the topic, as unlike the other articles where are just single pages on general websites. If you cannot justify your actions, I will be leaving a message on the Talk Page of the article, and re-making my edits. --VCHunter (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All articles suffer from a problem whereby different people arrive and add a couple of external links, with the result that such links accumulate, links that often do not comply with WP:EL (and your edit did not use an edit summary). That doubly applies to an article on trolling (I cannot remember now, but it's quite possible that because of the trolling subject my inspection of the linked sites was very cursory—sorry about that). When edits are reverted, the best response is to raise the matter at the article talk page. My suggestion would be to briefly outline at Talk:Troll (Internet) how the links you propose comply with the guideline, and how they help the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Your policy on Talk Pages above say you respond on this page, so I posted on this page. Those links meet the rules in WP:EL. They stand in their own right, and have resources that a Wikipedia article would not have, such as information on who to contact if trolled, and helpful tips on how to avoid harmful trolling and troll responsibly. As I have reached the status where I can edit the Trolling page, which most users don't have, then I don't think I need to ask for them to be included, as others without my reputation would have to. --VCHunter (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with discussions like this is that other editors may have an opinion, or may want to easily refer to previous discussions on the topic. I do not see any reason why the matter should not be raised at the article talk page—it's just some external links and nothing particular about the editors involved. Please do not read too much into a brief edit summary: of course I did not intend to attack anyone's character, and I am sorry if my words were taken in that way. I am not suggesting you ask anyone about editing the article, but if you look at its history it will be apparent that often someone will add links to things that are not very helpful, and a discussion can establish that there is a good reason to include these links (that was just a suggestion). Your edit occurred a while ago and I have forgotten why I decided to remove the links—possibly I jumped to an incorrect conclusion due to the history of that page, sorry. I have added a note to the talk page (here) in case anyone wants to express an opinion. Please just undo my revert and see if anyone responds. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

It appears that you are being the subject of a block here; [1], and in a not so mr nice guy way. Soviet King (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I can't find anything there (or in a bit of the history that I looked at) that is directed at me. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
apparently, check this diff [2], which later on resulted in this [3]. Soviet King (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. Bit hard to interpret that, but thanks for pointing it out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Johnuniq. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I would like to express some thoughts about DR but as a confirmed cautionist (and despite the fact that I have seen some of your positive contributions) at the moment I will pass on the offer to click an external link with who-knows-what consequences. I have mentioned elsewhere that a WMF controlled server should be a minimum for surveys. Johnuniq (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Interrupting comments

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at WT:TPG's talk page. VR talk 23:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have further commented, but I don't think I can really help. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dragon2016

There has been some talk about him before on User talk:WayKurat and several others, and his actions certainly qualify for being a long-term abuser. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk to keep discussion in one place. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

Dear User:Johnuniq, thanks for the heads up. I was unaware that rollback could be used to simply revert, especially since there is a separate "rollback (vandalism)" option. And thanks for paying attention to the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

New essay/rant

Please take a look at User:Chaos5023/Why your entire way of thinking about the Abortion Article Titles RFC is wrong. As you might expect from the title, it presents a fairly different way of looking at the RFC than you may be familiar with. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I already saw your essay from the notice you added at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles and its talk page. I guess you are correcting a misunderstanding made by those (such as myself) who have voted there, but I'm afraid I still don't know what the point of the essay is, or why my comments were wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Black Swan Theory and its application to the sinking of the Titanic April, 1912

Long message removed. Laurencebeck (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. However, what I was suggesting was that you post at the article talk page (I gave the link on your talk page, namely Talk:Black swan theory). I have moved your comment from here to your talk page, where I will post an explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • Account activation codes have been emailed.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Confused about your recent deletion

So, I was just wondering about your recent deletion. It is well known that the father was a polygamist so a distinction about which family he was leaving seems appropriate.

  1. AttackWatch


50.58.246.125 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess we are talking about Dreams from My Father where I reverted two edits (diff and diff). I know a good edit summary was used, but when adding a statement that the father of the POTUS returned to his "other wife", a reliable source must be added (with a page number). Please raise the matter at the talk page of the article (Talk:Dreams from My Father) if you want to discuss it further. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Die schöne Müllerin.

I appreciate your correction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_sch%C3%B6ne_M%C3%BCllerin), but what about this page, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_by_Franz_Schubert? It contains different formatting, which I found more appropriate because of tradition and aesthetics. Karkadann (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I responded at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words. bobrayner (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)