User talk:Hkhenson

Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Welcome to the Wikipedia, Hkhenson! And thanks for the contribution to the Mind control article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:


 * Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
 * When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;.

Best of luck, Hkhenson, and have fun! Ombudsman 02:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Lynch
The top line of the article says he died last November. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Anyway, an appeal for contact would more appropriately go on the Talk page in my humble opinion. &mdash;Tamfang 20:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just didn't see it, will fix. Bummer. Keith Henson 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism, Scientology and Raelism
Hello Hkhenson. I just wanted to let you know about the discussion at Talk:Transhumanism. --Loremaster 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tooby
Hmmm... that was almost a year ago, so I can't remember. I'm guessing it was a mistake; feel free to add it back if you like. Mi kk er (...) 17:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Capture-bonding
Thank-you for taking the time to reply to my comments. I have seen them, and I shall reply in detail in due course, although this may not be until Friday (European time). I encourage you to continue you discussion with Sadi in the meantime: I think there is a misunderstanding of styles and personalities between the two of you which comes on top of the scientific discussion. Best of luck for your other battles, 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN at Capture-bonding
Your last edit deleted over 14,000 kilobytes worth of sourced material. At this point, your efforts are turning into direct cases of vandalism. Please cease this at once. --Sadi Carnot 15:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
"I will revert the article to get rid of the conflicting, unrelated information and continue to do so until you quit piling in conflicting material or the admins rule against me" Consider this the ruling. You will cease edit warring for the sake of edit warring, if you have a dispute take it to WP:RFC, as I have suggested the other party do. But this type of gaming the system won't play, monsignor. --Golbez 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page protocol
Henson, I understand that you are not a seasoned talk page user, but please read Talk page. In short, make your comments "following" the comments of the person you want to talk to, not in their mid sentence. In other words, don’t break up a person’s paragraph by inserting replies mid-way. Second, use colons ":::" to indent. Third, please try to keep you comments in one paragraph, rather then sentence by sentence. It's easier to follow who is saying what this way. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Grant you the "answer under a post without breaking them up." That's completely counter to the way replies have been done for decades on usenet. In a long usenet post you may reply in several places to particular points.  But whatever the local standard. (Are you certain about this?)


 * "One paragraph" though is so ridiculous that I went looking.  Talk page links to:


 * Talk page guidelines


 * Technical and format standards


 * Layout


 * * Answer underneath a post: Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. The one at the bottom is the latest.


 * * Separate multiple points with whitespace: If a single post has several points, it makes it clearer to separate them with a paragraph break (i.e. a blank line). (more snipped)


 * This isn't paper, and as the guildline says, use whitespace. And quit editing my discussion postings into an unreadable block.  In the usenet world that would be considered extremely rude. Keith Henson 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Henson, but this is Wikipedia, we all try to follow the same format. If you break up a person's chain of thought by interspersing partial replies, then the talk page becomes unreadable to 3rd party participants. New Wikipedians sometimes think it is better to use letter-style replies and to answer in someone else’s comments, but usually join into the normal flow given time. --Sadi Carnot 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that white space to separate multiple points in a talk page post is per the policy quoted above?


 * Will you quit editing out other people's white space? Keith Henson 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

'

The interrupted template is used for usenet-style replies. Publicola 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hey Keith, I have just become aware of your dispute with Sadi. (He posted a request for comment WP:RfC) Please let me know what your side of the issue is and hopefully there can be a peaceful resolution with respect to capture bonding, which will allow for the article to meet the standards here at wiki without putting anyone out. Thanks so much--Cronholm144 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently read your comments on the mediation page and I would like to know why capture bonding cannot be viewed as a abnormal psychology phenomena. This argument seems similar to the quantum explanation of light versus the wave theory of light. Both seem to explain the phenomena fairly well. The work of money seems to deal with Stockholm syndrome, which is a different way of looking at this, correct. So I see no reason not to mention it in the article. Either way, the article as it currently stands is more in line with typical wiki good articles (in terms of style). I look forward to your response.--Cronholm144 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Capture-bonding
Keith, I reported this article at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard because of the appearance of WP:COI and WP:OR issues. Feel free to comment there. In general, you have to be very careful when citing your own work, and when removing original research tags like you did here. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 03:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot
An interesting case has opened at WP:ANI. I recommend you follow this link and comment. Do so briefly and try to provide a few concrete examples in the form of diffs. Don't overload the case by saying too much. - Jehochman Talk 03:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keith, whether or not Sadi is blocked, I don't expect him to return because his ploy has been exposed. For yourself, please take the high road with respect to Conflict of interest.  Avoid citing your own work.  If you think your own work could be a source for an article, feel free to recommend changes and provide a link to your work as a source on the article talk page.  That's the best way for you to remain above criticism.  The administrator who unblocked Sadi noted that you had cited yourself in articles, and that gave him the opportunity to make arguments I'd rather that he didn't have. If you make comments on a talk page and they go unacted upon for a while, feel free to ask me for advice on how to get attention. - Jehochman  Talk 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice.


 * I expect him to be back, probably under a different name. The guy is persistent, and as a guess has a lot of time on his hands.


 * Re citing my article, it was published in a reputable (on line) journal. That's a bit different from citing your personal web site where you sell books.  The capture bonding article (which has been through dozens of edits before I cleaned out most of Sadi's BS) cites my article more than I would like.  If you or anyone else who understands the basics of evolutionary psychology would like to make it more readable, be my guest.  I think the point is to make informative, readable articles, not to ban the people who know something about the topic.  Nobody complained about COI before Sadi came along.  It's not like I am selling books when I point people to on line articles of mine that expand on a subject.


 * Citing Conflict of interest "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."


 * Capture-bonding, while I didn't originate it, I certainly did spread the idea around and there are not many others who have. Considering the number of Google hits for that article, I think it rates as notable.  If you can get someone to work on it, please do.  If nobody else wants to work on capture bonding in the next week, I might take another pass at it.


 * The whole Sadi business has sure been interesting. Keith Henson 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to say something? Or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&curid=438960&diff=167022287&oldid=167014194 Kww 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Even trying to be diplomatic. :-) Keith Henson 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ease off if possible please, there's another way
You don't know me, but we had a lengthy discussion in the '90s at a science fiction convention, back when the Doubletree was the Red Lion. Anyway I think the world of you and welcome you to Wikipedia wholeheartedly. I appreciate that you have boldly dove in and hit the ground running, which is great to see. I hope you are around for a long time.

Having said that, I just want to tell you, adding your own research material with USENET as a source is profoundly bad according to the Wikipedia policies on no original research and reliable sources. You can only add materials which, among other things, aren't self-published. You already know about the conflict of interest policy, too, which has implications, if I remember correctly, to the effect that you can't add your own self-published stuff even if someone else would be able to. Adding the your peer-reviewed publications is generally okay, but many people will frown upon that, too.

I know you have come up against someone who has obviously done far worse, which makes it incredibly difficult to pick up on norms. I hope you will please take my advice and refrain from editing any material about your own self-published research.

'''The correct way to go about this when there is a conflict or self-published material that you wish to add, is to post the information on the article's talk page and ask others to do so. If you don't get an answer you can post a few days later on WP:VPM and someone will take a look at it there for certain.'''

I hope I don't discourage you. These policies are designed to prevent just the kind of abuse you have encountered. I just now learned of these issues, coming across an Arbitration Committee discussion, and looking around I saw that Capture bond said "(See capture-bonding for the unrelated evolutionary psychology term)." My heart sank when I saw that both of these "unrelated" articles immediarely mentioned Stockholm syndrome. This is what is technically known as a mess, and it will take time and experienced, uninvolved editors to sort out.

Again, welcome, and I wish you the best. Publicola 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point
Re the capture-bonding cite, if you follow the article history back, there was a request for a citation. I took this to mean they wanted confirmation of it being about 15 years after 1980, and that very short 1997 Usenet post is as far as I know the only thing that puts a time stamp on when I came to the same conclusion John Tooby had come to in the early 1980s. Sorry I put it in, I should have posted it to the talk page and let someone else do it, but it seemed to be unnecessarily complicated to put in a requested cite and nothing else. It's hardly POV pushing.

If you see any problem with it, revert, rewrite, delete at your choice.

Another cite request in the same article has a big entry I put on the talk page and nobody has done anything about it for 6 days.

The creation of capture bond I had discussed on the talk page a week or more before I split out the material unrelated to the evolutionary psychology term, capture-bonding (as an evolved psychological mechanism) that Sadi had stuffed into the article. I don't think this material deserves a Wikipedia entry, but I didn't want to just deleted it. Feel free to put the article up for deletion.

Now while I would absolutely *love* to be able to claim that I discovered the evolved capture-bonding mechanism, I can't do it. John Tooby got there first by 15 years. So anything I say about it isn't original research.

Re self published, unless you count postings to Usenet and similar lists, I have not self published; all my publications even the fiction pieces have had editors/publishers, the space engineering and psychology papers were either approved conference papers or reviewed.

I have actually been here about two years. Not very active, but I wrote much of the material on L5 Society after being requested to do so and contributed to a few other articles where I could be considered knowledgeable.

What were we discussing at BayCon? I might remember the topic even if my people buffer has long overflowed. :-)

Keith Henson 03:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The C of S. At the time I walked up to you on the patio, you were talking to a crowd about it. I didn't know the first thing about any of it back then. You filled me in on all the details.


 * I am having trouble trying to determine whether Human Nature Review is peer-reviewed; their website doesn't even list an editor. I assumed it was not, but in the ANI thread you refer to it (I think) as "reviewed." Can you please help? Publicola 07:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[deleted as moot]

The evolutionary capture-bonding might be significant for non scientists to understand why humans act so weird, but the big names in EP (such as John Tooby) think it is so obvious it doesn't even rate an article.

In retrospect, I should not have objected when Sadi tried to corrupt the term by stuffing unrelated material into the article, no doubt in preparation to using it to support his pseudoscience. In deeper retrospect, I should never have mentioned capture-bonding on Wikipedia at all. It's easy to find with Google if anyone is interested.

To keep down confusion, I would appreciate if you would rename the article "capture bond" since it no longer has anything to do with an evolved psychological mechanism.

Best wishes,

Keith Henson 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the offer, but I don't think I have anything useful to say short of a major theoretical essay on the social dynamics of online groups as seen through the lens of evolutionary psychology. And if I did write one, it would be rejected as original research.   Keith Henson 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keith, can you just delete the evidence of P62 being incivil? He got a little steamed.  It happens to all of us from time to time.  Let's focus on the essentials of the case.  If he gets snarky later on, you can always pull this evidence out of your back pocket.  I think it's a good idea to exercise restraint whenever possible and not fan the flames of conflict.


 * For you and others in a similar situation, I have proposed a change to WP:COI, at WT:COI - Jehochman Talk 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) The above warning refers to this comment at Articles for deletion/Capture bonding. Please ensure that your comments are germane to the issues at stake in the AfD, which boil down to whether Capture bonding is a notable concept in psychology. Repeated accusations that Physchim62 wants to delete the article because of the Sadi Carnot arbitration are both uncivil and irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. Thank you. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you can make a case that pointing out facts is a personal attack.


 * You act as if I were trying to prevent the article from being deleted. This is just plain incorrect. As it is, the article *should* be deleted. A simple concept stuffed with unrelated nonsense doesn't do either the concept or Wikipedia any good. Keith Henson 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree that the article should be deleted. However, accusing Physchim62 of starting the AfD as "revenge" for the arbitration case and harping on his supposed support for Sadi Carnot has nothing to do with the AfD, and is an obvious instance of commenting on the contributor, and not the content. If you feel you must say such things, limit them to the arbitration pages, and keep them out of the AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I note in looking at Physchim62's talk page you have not asked *him* to refrain from personal attacks. Please consider them and tell me if what I have said rises even close to what he has recently written attacking me and several others involved in trying to sort out the mess around Sadi Carnot. I would appreciate your considered judgment in this matter. Keith Henson 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Meme article
Regarding this comment on my talk page, I personally would prefer a citation, yes. Are those statements common knowledge to a person unfamiliar with memetics? If you think those statements don't need a citation, you're free to remove the fact tag. If your userpage is any indication, you appear to be quite knowledgeable about the field of memetics and I'm glad we have experts like you contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Grue (monster)
Back in June you put the tag "This article does not cite any references or sources" on Grue.

The article talks extensively about the Infocom Zork games and _Dying Earth_ by Jack Vance. I hardly know how you could have more cites. Am I missing something? Keith Henson (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, inferring that most or all information in an article came from the work(s) it encompasses fails to satisfy the guidelines laid down at Citing sources. Verifiability states that, ideally, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In the cases where such sources do not exist, references to the material itself are somewhat permissible as long as they are explicitly referenced. Take a look at Final Fantasy VII for an example of how facts about a work can be referenced from within the work itself. In addition to providing acceptable referencing this method clearly separates facts actually contained in the work from original research done by the editors. Anyway, I hope that clarifies this for you. :) GarrettTalk 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New capture bonding draft
I didn't realize you were planning to post it directly into the discussion. I've moved it to the existing subpage in your userspace, User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding, which already contains the previous history of the article. This is just to make sure everything is in the right place; I think a new DRV at this point might be considered premature. Chick Bowen 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your new draft of the article, I'm sorry that Wikipedia's deletion procedures can be so confusing. They are designed to prevent content of dubious merit from "sneaking its way" into an encyclopedia that this is maintained largely by non-expert volunteers.  Occasionally, this causes good content to become caught "in the net"; inadvertently, this article came to people's attention when you referenced your own work, which is not forbidden in the least, but does raise questions.  To my eyes, the draft is substantially improved, more than enough to escape CSD G4 (deletion of reposted content.)  I'm not even sure it requires an AfD, but that is at editorial option.  It now seems like a fine article to me, and I will move it to mainspace.  This does not mean it is immune from another "articles for deletion" debate, but I'd expect it to survive.  If anyone ask you how the article came to be where it was, please refer them to me.  Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since several objections were raised to the recreation, I've renominated this at Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (2nd nomination). I know that will be disappointing, but as Xoloz said, there is no way to prevent it, and better now than later in my opinion.  So please comment there. Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is the name ofthe article--unless you can provide some real sources for its use, it really needs to be renamed--I think if it were, everyone would be satisfied. If the name becomes established, it could be moved back. It would be a shame to sacrifice the article over this. DGG (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See the comments on the AfD page. The problem is that (as you say) Stockholm syndrome is confusing to describe this obvious and more general phenomena. It's a problem with many EP explanations. Once they have been stated they seem trivial and obvious. :-)  Keith Henson (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Second version now userfied as well. Let's see if we can get a third version that passes editorial muster! - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And I just noticed your request for the talk page as well, which is now at User:Hkhenson/Talk:Capture bonding. Merry R6mas! - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Light
Durova was my admin coach and I sometimes work with her. There was a question as to my involvement in the matters subject to arbitration. Thus far nearly all the discussion has focused mostly on Durova, and only slightly on me (see ). - Jehochman Talk 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

request for article
Existential risks of artificial intelligence

Mailing would be fine, hkhenson@rogers.com or hkeithhenson@gmail.com. It had editing fixes I would like to keep. There is a home for it.

Keith Henson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs) 06:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * I've emailed it to the address you have registered with Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

UFOs etc
A source would be great. Not sure if the sentence was worded slightly wrong, or not, but it seemed a bit unlikely, maybe the source worded it slightly differently, we could double-check it. It's your life so I expect you know more about it than most people.:):):) Sticky Parkin 20:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Order of Cosmic Engineers
Hello, just to let you know that I've moved your comments about social dynamics to the talk page, so that the deletion discussion remains focussed upon the consensus to keep or delete. Oh, and I also replied to your question about me and Loremaster. Best, – Toon (talk)  18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to comments like this, I'm going to ask you to either stop making ill-informed accusations of sockpuppetry towards myself and Loremaster; or go to Suspected sock puppets, read the instructions and file a report. Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation to make, and I do not appreciate your continued questioning of my character. A look for yourself through my contributions and Loremaster's would show you that we are indeed unrelated. Cheers, – Toon (talk)  17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree from the evidence that one of you is most unlikely to be a sock puppet for the other. However what you did for loremaster can certainly be considered being a meat puppet. I bet you he was most surprised that you made it clear the AfD request was from him. You seem to have the admirable trait of excessive honesty. :-) His excuse of not having time is really unlikely from the timestamps and he is certainly up to filling out an AfD without help.

Incidentally, loremaster's real world ID has most likely been discovered. It's an interesting story and in my opinion should disqualify him from editing transhumanist articles. I am not going to follow up on this because unlike loremaster I don't care about pretentious wiki articles on the subject or for that matter, much about the subject itself. I would, however, bet fair odds that the people involved in transhumanist organizations would prefer there be no wiki articles rather than the ones "edited" by loremaster. Keith Henson (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration
This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is because you have edited articles within the topic and have now been mentioned in a Finding of Fact in the /Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason related to the arbitration you went after me? Banning me from a topic I have edited no more than twice and not edited for more than a year is very strange.  Have I offended you in some way I am not aware?  Keith Henson (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied by email.  Roger Davies  talk 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Scientology
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :


 * Banned : (Community Ban),
 * Topic-banned :, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*,
 * Other restrictions :
 * gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
 * is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
 * is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.


 * #Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

archives and CoI
I notice you were involved in a recent discussion about archives at the WP:CoI policy. I was wondering if you could please have a look at a couple of the questions I've asked about this that were raised to me by people in the industry: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest Sincerely, Witty Lama 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of future WP:MLA
Please come take a look at the rapidly developing page previously known as WP:GLAM. I'd appreciate your feedback before it goes live. Thanks. --UncleDouggie (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

archives etc.
It is getting too heated etc. at the moment, and I think we should try together to first see if we can meet somewhere halfway (I know, you suggested to use e-mail, but we can also try to keep it on-wiki for now).

First, I agree that these links can be of use. And in a way, I don't mind them to be added in a massive way (either by one of the archivists themselves, or by a wikiproject, by a bot, or by someone else who has access to the database in an easy way). For the editor with a COI, there may be a bit of a problem (it may appear promoting, and I have seen such cases, though indeed generally those are not the archivists themselves, but someone somewhere else in the organisation).

You brought the Stanford editor as an example, where you found that the links were good. I have been examining them, and have some minor remarks (relating to formatting and style, e.g.), but also a couple of serious remarks/mistakes with that editor. The bigger problems were that they made occasional serious mistakes (probably due to the relative high speed of addition), and when asked, did not discuss but simply proceed. If 'we' find errors, and the editor just continues, then however good the archive is, it is better to revert, check &c., then to leave them without knowing. I've had discussions before with projects, but there is at that time no active response (people have other things to do), and you are left with a mixture of several good, and several which are plainly wrong. So what use do the good ones have then (which are correct?)?

A couple of days ago I was notified of another archive adding links. With those I did not see any mistakes, they were slow in adding, took care, had a look around the articles, &c. &c. They did by the way quote the #7 on their userpage, not the change afterwards.

I feel that in that section, #7 is out of place, to me it is not a 'non-controversial edit' (not sure how to say, they are done by editors with whom generally the COI is not the problem or something like that). We could however start another section where we do take the words of #7, maybe slightly adapted. Also, GLAMs are still not the only in those groups, I don't think we should make an exception for GLAMs, and not make exceptions for 'commercial databases', and there are other organisations which have similar data. What do you think? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Off hand if someone puts in a good but poorly formated link, we might call their attention to it or fix it, but just deleting seems non productive.


 * If you go back into the long thread where we came to putting it under non-contriversial, you can see it wasn't my choice but a compromise.


 * I proposed a different kind of exception to let employees out of COI while adding links to what the archive has. Putting it in non-contriversial section was someone else's idea.


 * Sorry you think this is heated. My wife *is* an archivist and knows the field, the needs, and a good number of the people.  If you want to make a similar exception for pointers put in by commercial data base operators, be my guest.  Long as they are not being advocates of some POV or excessively link spamming I don't have a a problem.  Keith Henson (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPA Major Revisions
I have edited the essay on SPAs by adding a new subsection above it addressing identification more specifically. The common misuses section lists misuses specified in the 2009 discussions that did not seem to be disagreed with (except the user page one was not brought up, but thats probably because it is so obvious). Anyways I want to make sure the essay stays neutral so I am asking members who made comments on the talk page to review the changes and make suggestions on the talk page. There is also a discussion of potential other misuses that could be added to the list but are slightly more controversial, and hence I did not add them immediately, but rather am looking for consensus first.MATThematical (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Hkhenson! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Steven A. LeBlanc -

Scientology update?
Anything new on that front? Checked your bio here and didn't see anytying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.228.6 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of "Military Brat" Pushed Back to 1939
Holy cow, I don't know if you realize what you just did! Good work Keith!

P.S. I think what you dug out hasn't been dug out yet by the major (modern day) authors on the subject (and I've read most of them).

Telemachus.forward (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

identification
Hi, I see you have your own article, have you self identified to the foundation and had your claim verified? Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea of what you mean by "self identified" nor why I should do so to the foundation. Far as I know, I have made no claims that need to be verified.  If I have, please explain.  I have been on the net for a long time and am fairly well known, however.  Keith Henson (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you are claiming to be a living person of note with a telephone number asking for contact on your user page and basically you could be anyone. Do you see that could be an issue? Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that putting contact information on a user page is "asking for contact." It not like Wikipedia is the only place you can find such information, and I can't think of a phone call from someone who got the number off the User page.  I was not aware that I was "claiming to be a living person of note."  Such fame as I have and a couple of bucks will get me a coffee at Starbucks.  As far as "could be anyone," I have been here for the last 5 years, and the first mention of me on the net dates back to 1988 at least.  I am known either over the net or in person to a number of Wikipedia editors, some of whom are on this page.  I had no idea that an editor could "self identify to the foundation" or what the procedure might be.  Perhaps you could enlighten me?  If you want you can call the phone number or I am hkhenson on Skype.  But what good that would be escapes me.  As you point out, I could be anyone pretending to be Keith Henson, though I can't imagine why.  Keith Henson (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my position is that if you continue to want to claim that you are this person with a wiki article and keep your contact details and that claim on your userpage, you need to identify to the foundation - I am also happy if you remove your contact details, that is up to you? If you want to continue claiming to be that person I will ask an WP:OTRS volunteer to assist you in confirming the details. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bizarre. Can you point me to a Wikipedia policy that requires editors to be secret about their real life identity or to confirm their ID with the Foundation?  I know the real life identity of a number of editors and they never mentioned this was a requirement.  Keith Henson (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob, you are being overzealous and peculiar. There is no requirement for anybody to identify themselves.  This user isn't (currently) being disruptive.  I've known them for several years and am confident that they are who they claim to be.  Moreover, Keith Henson is a well-known internet personality.  Surely if there were an imposter running around Wikipedia posing as him, he would file a complaint with WP:OTRS and they would sort it out.  Now please go away and stop hounding this user.  Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moreover, this user has identified to ArbCom. There is no issue whatsoever. See Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for that, I asked if he had self identified, see my opening question ... never mind. There are a of of venerable people around, we should be vigilant in this identification when claims and contact details are published on wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Jenna Miscavige Hill, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the article and the associated talk page and as far as I can see, I have never made an edit to either. Can you explain why I got this notice?  Keith Henson (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You commented on its AFD. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. I have not contributed to a Scientology related article for a number of years.  Please note that I am not personally under any restrictions.  But it is interesting that the terms of the probation seems to ban highly knowledgeable editors from commenting on AfDs.  Interesting.  Keith Henson (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That is correct. RA, in the future please leave a link to the specific case when giving a notice, as that will be helpful.  Many thanks. Jehochman Talk 16:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hkhenson, it would be a really good idea for you to refrain from all editing of Scientology related topics. You are likely to become a lightning rod in these areas.  Best to just stay away, or limit yourself to an occasional talk page post.  Regards k]] 16:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, I have not even done that unless you count editing the page about me as a scientology page. And the only changes I did there was to add citations in the places where they were requested.  The above complaint is because I spoke up on an AfD.  I don't think it was the intent of ArbCom to silence people from speaking up on AfDs, but perhaps it was.  Maybe you could find out.  Keith Henson (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Military Brats
Hi Kieth, you had said hello and offered to chat about military brat stuff. I'm sorry about the slow response, it's been an unusually busy two weeks.

Have you seen the Documentary "Brats: Our Journey Home" ? It's about the lives of military brats and it won five film awards. Here is a Wikipedia article about the creator/director of the documentary, Donna Musil, that also discusses the documentary. Musil also is a military brat, by the way.

Thanks also again for the new source dating the earlier origin of the term "military brat".

Best,

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Keith Henson
Oil drum article added. But under "works", which is unsatisfying - I'd prefer a new section like "Later space technology efforts." Got more? Fire away. Yakushima (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Email
Hello. You can email me through Wikipedia. First, make sure you've added your email address to your Wikipedia profile (click on your My Preferences link and under the User Profile tab you'll see a spot for your email address), then go to my user page and click on "E-mail this user" on the left side of the screen under "Toolbox"). SQGibbon (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the Kevin L. Parkin article
Hello, I am responding here on your talk page instead because of the relative urgency:

Because you have assured me that you will get Parkin's permission and contact Wikipedia's volunteer response team, I have temporarily restored the Kevin L. Parkin article and added OTRS pending to is talk page.

Please forward all relevant emails per the instructions previous mentioned. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Simulacron-3. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Oneiros (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

See the response on your talk page. Incidentally I did give a reason for removing the maintenance template. Keith Henson (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Anir1uph (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Details
Go ahead and provide me with any details. I'll act if it seems appropriate, and let you know what I decide.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding text to comments
Adding text to an existing comment you have made here makes things hard to follow when someone has replied. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The added text was duplicated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller. I added a note to show where it came from.  Keith Henson (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=632654234 your edit] to Robert Hofstadter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hofstadter filed a patent on this for the detection of ionizing radiation by this crystal. [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10169&

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Hofstadter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Princeton and Polish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Jasper Lawrence concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jasper Lawrence, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jasper Lawrence


Hello, Hkhenson. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jasper Lawrence".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is ok to remove the draft. It is in mainspace.  Keith Henson (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Divergence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gregory Clark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Imbellus


A tag has been placed on Imbellus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. DannyS712 (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Y chromosome bottleneck moved to draftspace
Hi Hkhenson, and thanks for contributing to the Y chromosome bottleneck article. Right now, the article as it stands doesn't give enough context for readers to understand the subject. For example, the first sentence doesn't give a definition of the Y chromosome bottleneck, as recommended by the guideline.

I've moved your article to draft space at Draft:Y chromosome bottleneck, where you can improve the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article is ready to be published again, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Thanks! —  Newslinger  talk   22:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The discovery from human genetics of the bottleneck and a proposed solution some 3 years or so later is (in a lot of people's opinions) the most important discovery about prehistory culture in the era between the start of agriculture and the rise of states.


 * The amazing graphical content of the original article was reproduced in the article by the Stanford researchers (click on the link to see). I think the content is under a creative commons license that could be used on Wikipedia, but I don't know how to find out.  I was hoping someone would take an interest in transferring the graphical content of those articles to Wikipedia.  Not a big deal, but if you put it in Draft space, nobody will see it.  Do you have any other thoughts on how to get editor attention on the topic?  Keith Henson (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Y chromosome bottleneck


Hello, Hkhenson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Y chromosome bottleneck".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please adhere to talk page guide lines
Each comment to a talk page discussion is to be indented and signed, per Help:Talk_pages, and WP:TPYES.

Your talk page edits  and  modifies comments made by different users and, in a manner not consistent with our talk page guide lines, see WP:TPO.

Please go the talk page in question and modify your comments so as to leave the original comments by their respective author as they originally wrote it. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Imbellus


Hello, Hkhenson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Imbellus.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I will email you this evening
Yes, I have your email address -- you should have mine already as well, though I check emails only once a week, typically. I will email you shortly, with an email address that I check every day. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Gregory Benford -- Chiller novel
By the way, it looks like your work and advocacy in cryonics is mentioned in the "afterward" in Gregory Benford's novel Chiller. The novel itself is poorly written, meanders, is tedious, and attempts to examine the legal and philosophical issues surrounding full-body cryonics, so I fast-forwarded through the novel and as I was passing through the "Afterward" I believe I saw your name mentioned, I need to go back on the Kindle and check for certain, maybe it was another Henson though it seems unlikely that Benford is aware of your work so seems unlikely that you're the Henson he mentioned in the Afterward. I'll let you know what I find. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

 * Keith Henson I did email you my email address. I'll do so again. SoftwareThing (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Did not see it. hkeithhenson at gmail dot com  Keith Henson (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Larry Flynt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcor ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Larry_Flynt check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Larry_Flynt?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Y chromosome bottleneck concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Y chromosome bottleneck, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Y chromosome bottleneck


Hello, Hkhenson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Y chromosome bottleneck".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is some interesting background on this phenomena located here. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Voynich
Hi Keith! It's been a year and a day since you stated the following:


 * As a prediction, I expect wide agreement will emerge in the next year around Cheshire's take on the VM.

I'm afraid you owe me a bottle of whisky, bro. :) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/cracking-the-voynich-manuscript/606592/ Drabkikker (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There are around 1000 people who are following Cheshire's work. (From download counter.) I suspect that's more than the pre-Cheshire Voynich MS community. To quote the article, "For his part, Cheshire remains confident in his work, drawing a distinction between himself and other would-be code crackers: He is right, and they are wrong. “Simple, really,” he says."

Cheshire has translated 7 of the biological pages. Have you read them? Keith Henson (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW, "Jillian Foley [author of the article] is a graduate student at the University of Chicago, where she studies the history of cryptography and computer science." Do you consider her to be an authority? Keith Henson (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to note, Jilliane Foley on LinkedIn can be found here. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at her credentials at least from her LinkedIn, she is not experienced and does not publish in any peer-reviewed journals. She may very well know something of cryptology and computer science however she is not an authority. Reviewing the article, it is written very well and covers all the salient points on the manuscript, yet she does not appear to me to be an authority on the subject or in cryptology or computer sciences. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)