User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 4

Inappropriate edit.
You removed this, citing WP:BRD, but did not discuss your objection to the edit on the Talk page. Please do this ASAP. Blackworm (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will get there in due course. Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of the person making bold changes to explain them on the talk page (particularly when the changes involve removing established and sourced text with no edit summary). My edit was highly appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

David Campbell
Hi thanks for your post. I'm interning with David Campbell and I noticed that he didn't have a wiki page so I thought I'd put one up. He didn't ask me to do it or give me any input at all. After reading your post I checked out the Conflict of Interest page and I guess I'm not supposed to edit a page of someone I know? I completely understand now so I'll stop editing that page, but does that mean that the existing page has to be deleted? Any advice you can give me would be great. As I said I've never done this before so I'm still learning the ropes. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanebell Assistant (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so reasonable. Wikipedia welcomes polite and reasonable editors, so please continue editing, and no, the page does not need to be deleted. You should bear in mind what WP:COI says, but the main rule is to focus on improving Wikipedia, rather than improving some external entity. Personally, I think the "List of album arrangements" at David Campbell (composer) is unnecessarily detailed, but I am happy to leave that consideration for editors who are experienced in that area. Just be sure to never use weasel language like "some consider X to be the finest whatever". Keep text neutral and provide a source for any claims (see WP:IRS). Feel free to ask here if you have any questions. :If you want opinions about the article, find a similar article and look on its talk page. At the top, you may find a box announcing that some music WikiProject is interested. Have a look at the talk page of that WikiProject. If recent discussions indicates that it is active, you could post a message there for advice on any issues about the Campbell article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think you're completely correct that I shouldn't have quoted that article which was biased toward David Campbell. At the time I was just trying to add more content, but I certainly agree now that it was inappropriate for Wikipedia. I will certainly read up on WP:IRS and thank you so much for all of your advice.Kanebell Assistant (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Current Research in Evolutionary Biology
Hey, I saw you in the talk page Talk:Current_research_in_evolutionary_biology, that you've edited evolution articles and commented on that guys talk page. He's gone and snipped the entire article which I'm not sure in necessary. Would appreciate your help so we can all work together to make the article better. I preferred the old format as it was clear and readable, but it probably does need change. Yet the current style is very messy. Genjix (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes I noticed that. While I agree that the change was not helpful, that user is doing some good work at the moment, and they were correct in saying that the material that was at Current research in evolutionary biology was not "current", and was in fact a collection of miscellaneous stuff. Accordingly, I thought I would just leave it (that is, sorry, but I don't feel there is more I want to do at this stage). By the way, you should use "Add topic" (or "new section", depending on your skin) to post a new message at a talk page. Doing that adds the message to the bottom. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Human
(crosspost) Johnuniq, instead of just condemning my work, can you explain in some minimal detail what is wrong with what I wrote? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Naturally I will join the discussion at Talk:Human. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Islam & evolution
A tour of other sites which may present the same issues revealed: Science in medieval Islam; Islamic science; Islamic medicine and (same page) Botany; Islamic Golden Age (this latter is just a mention of evolution in a list). They have passages, all of which are subject to similar criticism, and some of which are copies or originals by the same contributor, with the same references. The case for doing a similar job on them is that they will be copied and misused if we don't. However, if we do tackle them, the effort needs to be set up first, otherwise it would be fruitless. Perhaps you could think about it; well, perhaps you already are! Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By "set up", do you mean that I should add a "Misuse of sources" section on each talk page, with an analysis of the text introduced by Jagged that remains in the article (similar to Talk:Evolution)? If yes, I would be glad to do it, although it may take a couple of days.
 * Please have a look at the following Notes. I believe "Evolution" is finished, but I am not sure about "History of evolutionary thought". Perhaps you would attend to the to do items? Many thanks for continuing with this. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I mean. Ping me when/if misuse section is up. Thanks, Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done
 * Science in medieval Islam has been processed and cleaned; see Talk:Science in medieval Islam. A major prune has removed all contentions material including Zoology. Need to see it does not return. Zoology prior to prune is here.
 * No action required at Islamic science because it is a redirect to Science in medieval Islam (since 2008).
 * No action required at Islamic medicine because it is a redirect to Medicine in medieval Islam (since 2008).

Add a "Misuse of sources" section on talk page of: Updated—everything in this section is now done. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Medicine in medieval Islam and Medicine in medieval Islam
 * Islamic Golden Age
 * Results for above two articles
 * Medicine in medieval Islam article has been stubbed; talk page has Misuse of sources.
 * Islamic Golden Age article has been stubbed; talk page has Misuse of sources.


 * Will use this to update entries at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup.


 * Evolution, discussion at Talk:Evolution: done (cleaned by Macdonald-ross and Plumbago).
 * History of evolutionary thought, discussion at Talk:History of evolutionary thought: is this finished? (cleaned by Macdonald-ross and TimVickers).
 * Yes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To do: References has two copies of following item (introduced by Jagged), and not currently used. Should both copies be deleted?
 * Yes, and done. Ref unreliable and no longer used. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and done. Ref unreliable and no longer used. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To do: Article contains text "Al-Jahiz was also wrote" and the "was" should be deleted (I haven't done that myself because I don't want to appear to endorse the claim which I have not investigated; "vivid descriptions" is a bit florid).
 * Yes, and done. Prose in section adjusted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

video link on "Passage Meditation"
Dear Johnuniq, You explained on the Passage Meditation Talk page why my original video link should have been deleted. I have since modified (on that Talk page) the proposed change to reflect the comments, and asked Carl Bunderson (the original deleter) to review. He has said (on the Passage Meditation Talk page) that he would now be fine with including the link if there is a consensus to do so. Given Carl's latest comments, my proposal (please see Passage Meditation talk page for explanation) would then be

EITHER In External Links
 * Easwaran on Youtube: What you do through the practice of meditation is train your attention

OR In the article itself, where it says to replace this with:
 * According to Easwaran, the practice of meditating on a specific passage of text (Easwaran suggests the Prayer of Saint Francis or Psalm 23 as examples[3]) has the effect of eventually transforming "character, conduct, and consciousness."
 * According to Easwaran, the practice of meditating on a specific passage of text (Easwaran suggests the Prayer of Saint Francis or Psalm 23 as examples[3]) trains the attention and has the effect of eventually transforming "character, conduct, and consciousness."

Would you please let me know whether either of these would be OK with you? Thanks, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. I have commented at Talk:Passage Meditation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your well-weighed thoughts on the Talk page. I hadn't looked at it that way, and I understand your objections. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

due weight and secondary sources
Hi Johnuniq - thanks for your voice of reason on the Nambla article talk page, I concur with your comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliance Globalcom
John, please consider my proposal here. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good! I have done some editing and commented at the talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll probably comment there in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Research about virtual communities
I am doing a research about virtual communities for my doctorate. I would like to study how the members define norms for the community. I would appreciate your contribution for my research. If I agree to participate, I will send you the questions. Jmbbmj (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation for Ugg boots
Johnuniq, you are cordially invited to participate in mediation here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I have already watchlisted WP:Requests for mediation/Ugg boots. I do not see any progress likely as the editors who oppose all use of Wikipedia for company promotion are unlikely to be dissuaded by mediation; the same applies to the other side. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to say "Mediation will not dissuade those editors who oppose all attempts to stop use of Wikipedia for company promotion" on the mediation talk page? Donama (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, although I guess I should have used different wording if it's not clear. My intention is to say that there are two kinds of editors in this case: (a) those who oppose all use of Wikipedia for company promotion (that includes me); and (b) those from the other side (those who, for whatever reason, favor promotional edits). Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for correcting my hasty editing at the cloud computing page. I'm still getting the hang of this. Cheers, AlexandrosM (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Science in medieval Islam
I an lost in wonder at your analysis. Of course, there's much I can't comment on (not being a polymath, you see...), but the consistent over-statement of work which should have been more conservatively described is extremely noticeable. I especially enjoyed the list of polymaths (criterion for inclusion?...), the claim that Ibn al-Haytham used every single iota of modern scientific procedure, and the list of applied sciences, which includes such gems as programmable automaton, flight control surfaces (!!), torpedo,... If one goes to the relevant page one usually finds supporting material by the same user. In the case of flight control surfaces, I noticed other users had the grit to throw his insertion out, which takes some doing, as you know. Many of the examples are exactly of the type seen on the evolution pages, where a perfectly sensible and useful piece of work in natural history is described as if it achieved the status of the theory of evolution. I am thinking about the 'what to do' question. My first inclination is, in stages, to take every science, technology and medicine page which is general -- not a primarily Islamic or Arabic page -- and take out everything not clearly justified, but not arbitrarily. A process of flagging, followed by a defined period, then removal if no satisfactory progress is made. Here I am suggesting a defined period as an innovation. The period of time should be weeks rather than months. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is excellent, and I would be glad to help, although I'm running fast in real life at the moment, and am lagging behind my hopes here. As a reminder to myself, your comment concerns an analysis that I created: Talk:Science in medieval Islam and Talk:Science in medieval Islam/Cleanup. It was quite interesting to work through some of the diffs. From memory, at first everyone was the "father of" something (father of optics, father of robotics, ...). I guess there must have been some pushback, because they then became "a pioneer of ...", and later, "a forerunner of ...". I'll let you know when I've got more. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BIU
Dear John, I hope this finds you well. It is nice knowing you through the Bircham International University discussion. I tried to explain my views after your comment (first wrote them briefly and again, elaborated them). I might not be as efficient as you are, but those comments come strait from my heart. Thanking you Shoovrow (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I have seen your comments at Talk:Bircham International University. I'm not sure why your heart is involved in that article, but we can discuss it at the article talk page, although I don't see a need to make a further comment at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, John. I hope you don't mind as I'm writing here. Still, I promise I won't write further here on this issue. I just felt your concern as very rational regarding why my heart is involved with that article. Therefore, felt that I should reply, otherwise, it would be misleading for my personal impression. Sometimes life is a strange place and strange things happen. I just want to let you know that I have some proof (very legal and fresh but very personal as well) at personal level that helps me to understand that this institute is not that crap as the article shows. Don't think that I am saying this because I am a student or teacher or owner of that institute! But, personal knowledge or proof is not applicable for wiki articles or any mass media or publication. Its true that the wiki BIU article shows nothing but truth, but those are not the whole truth. Each time I see that article, I feel guilty as I know for sure that there are some good things there too in the BIU issue! John, I am a scientific thanatologist (plus a physician, psychiatrist, psychotherapist and psychologist) and I have my works preserved in decent places like the Royal College of Psychiatrists at London and other places and BIU is never my business. I edit BIU article at wiki simply because I feel it is a responsibility of mine as a human being, not just a wiki editor. Sorry for this last long message. Thank you again for your patience, brother. Shoovrow (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC on vandalism sandboxes
As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will respond in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WQA
You probably ought to be aware of this. I have no idea what you have done to piss this editor off either.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw some of the earlier comments and decided to not respond because while I would be happy to be conciliatory, I couldn't think of wording that might not cause further offense. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please forgive the intrusion. I was glad to see the note about conciliatory words and it seems just that much gave me enough perspective to figure out what "what kind of witch" probably meant. It was totally my fault I was late with diffs, but I hope it's understandable that I felt "my side" couldn't have been taken into account. I had asked for an acknowledgement of that but it was closed and reopened without a yay or nay from me, I'm sorry for posing the ad hominem question to you so pointedly. It wasn't being addressed. But, it occured to me here, that by "kind" in "anxieties over what kind of witch" EotR could have meant fluffy or non-fluffy as opposed to Sabbatic, Traditional, Wiccan, etc. (as in religious affiliation). That actually follows from what I said I didn't assume, (I shouldn't have scolded on behalf of the bunny). That brings it all back down to the level of snarkiness, if that's livable. I do have anxieties IRL over staying out the line of fire of witch wars but nothing to do with that article. Anyway, that wasn't something you could have answered but I guess it was more the thought that counts.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I am not sure exactly what Elen of the Roads meant, but I am very confident that the fluffy bunny remark was not directed at you, and I certainly intended no offense. I have posted a second comment at WP:WQA which I hope will finalise the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain (obviously badly as no-one understood) it was the sources for these articles that I intended to describe as fluffy - as for example Llewellyn worldwide, who will in my opinion publish any kind of rubbish if they think they can sell it to people. It's a difficulty, because while I would never comment on another person's private religious beliefs (who am I to stand between a man and his God), one has to be careful with the sources used for witchcraft articles in Wikipedia, because publication does not always equate to notability. Anyway, I do hope we can now all agree that it was a misunderstanding, and no-one intended to offend anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, could you come by and help make sure I'm not sticking my foot in my mouth again? Thanks! Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented at User talk:Machine Elf 1735. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jagged85
I would like to draw your attention here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Cleanup.

Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert. I hope you don't mind, but I have moved your comment to WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 where I have posted a very preliminary reply. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been investigating Jagged85's edits for months, and I have only come to know of this 5 days ago. So pardon me for not having verified (and I can only acknowlege something after personally verifying) the extent of the problem.

However, you also haven't acknowleged the extent of the deletionism going on here. Articles on Muslim contributions in various fields are being blanked (not replaced or rewritten). Often this is happening under false edit summaries, and the deleting editor is using his own original research to challenge Jagged85's reliable sourcing, and even challenging the reliability of material published in academic journals (some of which are published by university presses). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the deleting editor, far from actually verifying every sentence he deleted, does not even seem to be reading every sentence he deletes.Bless sins (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This relates to a comment I made at Talk:Science in medieval Islam (diff).
 * There is no rush to resolve the issue. I won't say much here because the matter should be discussed on article talk pages, or perhaps at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, however I will observe that I do not support unthinking deletion of material, but I would also be very uncomfortable with procedures that allowed known bad material to remain in articles for an extended period. For "known bad", see the evidence mentioned at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup and the two stunning examples I gave here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you don't support unthinking deletion of material, can you, at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, suggest the criteria upon which material should be deleted? The current norm is: if Jagged85 wrote it, delete it. That is unthinking in my opinion.Bless sins (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, in due course. The exaggerations and deceptions (including lies) have been in many articles in Wikipedia for months/years, so I think it understandable that some editors may remove more than absolutely necessary. To remove possibly good information results in information that is missing. To leave bad information visible in articles is much worse, particularly when there are apparently sources for the information (sources which in fact do not verify the information as presented in the article, or sources which are dubious). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you help me?
You are right about the Ron Holloway article. User:Ronsax (who IS Ron Holloway) has sped up look at the page history just from the last three days! That comment begun by Orange Mike in the past few days triggered an egocentric, full-time absorbed guy with WP:OWN, and WP:COI issues (I told him that my adoption of him 2 years ago was premature and foolish since I was too new to Wikipedia), but nobody ever adoped me! He's ignored the info on the Welcome template with all the guidelines. I have always suggested working on other articles but he ONLY wants to promote his own. I spent 2 1/2 hours on the phone with him last night. I moved all the links from the external links and put them on the talk page and had to literally place a big (invisible) sign in external links saying no more would be tolerated. But from our earliest correspondence he pressured me, saying somethng about how important to a musician's career to have this [ ] ." (he stopped just short of saying the word,"publicity"). But really, he never was an adoptee. I'd correct something he did wrong, and he'd ignore my emails, except about every 4 months, and I thought maybe he didn't ununderstand online coaching. On the article talk page he kept promising to meet with me in person, saying if I explained it in person, I could teach him in a couple of hours how to do it, and explain the problems in the article. But although he lives 15 min. away, he never has, but will call for hours on the phone about it! Anyway, I've been continuing to convert his stuff into inline citations, using CITE but he hasn't used CITE claiming not to see the little buttons above the edit box. Question: if he uses a ref from the [[Washington Post], but other editors checking the source can't get beyong the title since it's archived and one must pay for it. IS that an acceptable reference? It's this: Please would you answer this last question, and whatever else on my talk page? Thanks. --[[User:Leahtwosaints|Leahtwosaints]] (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that is a lot worse than I imagined. Re your specific question (and I will alert you on your talk page): There is no problem with regard to Wikipedia's guidelines if a reference is hard to check. The reference might be a book available only to bona fide researchers at a few universitites, or (as in this case), it might be available for a payment. The referenced material must be verifiable, but the verification does not have to be easy or cheap. However, as with many of the factoids in this article, another issue is whether material is due: How important is it that Holloway went to see Freddie Hubbard? Does the reference actually state that it was important, or is the importance original research or synthesis according to the views of an editor (even if that editor is the person in question)? One approach might be to find a couple of articles about musicians of similar, or possibly greater, standing and form some judgment of whether the details in this article are appropriate. Be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF prohibits an argument along the lines of "some other article does it this way, so this article should also"; nevertheless, reasonable comparisons can help other editors form an opinion. Opinions could also be sought at WT:WikiProject Jazz or perhaps WT:WikiProject Biography. I am watching Ron Holloway (without much enthusiaum), but the few edits that I have checked have been improvements (I see that a lot of puffery has gone). However, the article seems far too long and detailed; it should be on a personal website. I am scratching at ideas, but another possibility would be for you to make a user subpage with a draft of the article as you believe it should appear. Then, you could propose it on the article's talk page, and later possibly insert it as the article. Then, rely on page watchers to judge whether to revert any changes (whatever you do, do not edit war yourself). If you post specific issues on the article talk page, I will possibly notice them and may be able to join in (if I don't within a day or two, feel free to alert me here). Thanks for trying so hard with this article! Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sirocco the Kakapo
Hi - you edited my addition to the kakapo page a couple of days ago, so I wanted to say hi and have a chat? This was my first attempt at Wikipedia so am very aware that I'm a newbie! But I was a bit puzzled by the exclusion as I thought I'd kept my addition very tight and relevant. I guess the debate is whether an individual of a species is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia? I understand that Sirocco's case probably veers on the edge of relevance; however a quick look around Wikipedia suggests that there are precedents - Bubbles the Chimp, for example, is a famous example. His fame is obviously huge - however there's also an article on Twiggy the Water-Skiing squirrel..! Again, maybe Twiggy is more famous than Sirocco (not in these parts, mind you!) - but I didn't attempt to add a whole new page on Sirocco, just a brief paragraph, which I thought was warranted.

On the kakapo discussion page, I posted up a question as to whether this was a relevant edition (before I'd worked out how to contact you directly, apologies for that), and someone - who formerly felt there wasn't a place for this kind of mention - posted saying that Sirocco's continued exposure in the media and relevant to conservation issues was, in fact, now justification for inclusion.

Ultimately though, my main reason for putting him on there was because people keep asking me why he isn't. Is that in itself a reason to include him? Maybe not, but it's close! Sirocco though is becoming a symbol of survival, an individual representing a species that came close to extinction - I think that's quite a powerful justification for a mention.

So could I respectfully ask you to have a think about whether or not Sirocco could be included? I'd consider different wording if that was the issue.

Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Pitt (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that your first edit at Wikipedia was reverted (by me), so thanks for your extremely polite message. You were not to know, but there is a history at Kakapo of people (probably quite young people) inserting inappropriate trivia, so there was an excited rush when a bird tried to mate with a documentary maker. All such attempts have been removed as inappropriate ephemera in this article. I have commented at Talk:Kakapo because it appears the situation may have developed, and a mention may now be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility
"Being a dick" refers to lack of civility, and therefore the link belongs there IMO – why do you think otherwise? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied at WT:Civility. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of LegalMatch for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article LegalMatch, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/LegalMatch (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! First time I've seen a user account created solely to nominate an article for deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Objections to evolution
Dear Johnuniq, please do not remove large quantities of information as you did on the Objections to evolution article. All of the information you removed was supported by a reputable reference and it was not directly quoted from the book. The information therein was written in original language that was summarized from the buttressing book. If you do not agree with the information, please post a query on the talk page of the article; however, per WP:CENSOR, that is not a legitimate reason to remove the work. Moreover, the information there meets WP:V and WP:RS. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Johnuniq, it seems like another user has intervened and has re-summarized the work and this is okay with me. I think this is no longer an issue. Best wishes, AnupamTalk 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of WP:BRD is incorrect. It is up to the editor wanting to add information to justify it on the article talk page (not on the talk pages of individual editors). It is totally inappropriate to mention WP:CENSOR in connection with my removal of new material, particularly since I gave an explanation in the edit summary, and not all verifiable material is suitable for an article. You pasted essentially the same text into three articles: Objections to evolution, Social Darwinism, Social effect of evolutionary theory. I left the other two articles because they are not concerned with hard science and a certain amount of hand waving is conventional in those areas (however, I am watching them in the hope that someone will clean up the text, and may join in later). Any further discussion should occur at Talk:Objections to evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For your information.
Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Thanks. -- Lear's Fool 10:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination)
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I commented. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DNA sequencing
NO, I mean't it for the article page - the article is out of date in a field that is moving rapidly. Maybe the way I did it doesn't conform to wiki standards, but I do know that warnings of one sort or another are often put into articles, eg this article is biased, this article reads like a how to do list, etc. I don't have a strong objection or feeling if you delete my comment; ever since I discovered tht people can sell wiki articles, I haven't really been interested in doing anything; its bad enough dealing with the fools who write the equivalent of 2+2=3; I, personally can't stand the idea of people profiting from my hard work. you want to reprint it for free fine, but making money is repulsive. just my 2 centsCinnamon colbert (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have avoided tags (and so don't know much about them), but they would be the correct thing for this situation. There is a nice table at Multiple issues which makes me think that Out of date might be what is needed. I think you would put the following on a line of its own, just under the heading of the section with the problem:  And, you would put a new section on the talk page with a few details of your concern.
 * Re people selling Wikipedia articles: I understand the repulsion at the idea of hearing that people are exploiting the community's work in that way (and I have heard that some article reprints are dubious with no concern for the product). However, it is possible to look at the matter another way: productive editors are here to help build a free encyclopedia, where "free" means no cost and available to all (e.g. while not impossible, governments find it hard to prevent their citizens from accessing the knowledge here). No one controls the distribution of Wikipedia, and if people can dream up a way of using the information here to assist others, that is good. In practical terms, that means there will be lowlife who set up linkfarms (websites with content copied from places like Wikipedia to boost Google rankings), or who sell printed copies of articles. In the latter case, at least there is the possibility that someone will learn something from the material, and it is even possible that a publisher might do the job properly by spending money on editors who prepare useful packages for schools or whatever. I doubt whether anyone makes much money selling articles, although they may well try. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

re profit
Dear Johnuniq - do you know anything about books like the one at the url below ? it looks like someone has repackaged wiki content into a book and is selling it on amazon; I don't know about you, I am simply not going to help wiki if it allows this; that is my personal bottom line - I will not do work for free that someone else profits by, and I really don't understand why you do either. http://www.amazon.com/Zeta-Potential-Lambert-M-Surhone/dp/6131060002/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291143235&sr=1-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have any knowledge of that. I see that Rich Farmbrough has left a review at the Amazon page saying that people should just use Wikipedia, and then I noticed that you had alerted him at User talk:Rich Farmbrough. While the situation is not ideal, it is a fact that any useful resource is exploited by some, and I think you are worrying unnecessarily. It is extremely unlikely that the particular "book" you linked to above will make its publisher any significant money, and while there will always be people trying to exploit Wikipedia, and a small stream of innocents who occasionally buy one of the fake books, that will only be a tiny part of how Wikipedia is used in general. If you were a doctor, would you only treat "nice" people? Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. I, too, am disgusted, although not enough to leave the project. The following is from a review at the Amazon page for Winslow Homer: Landscape Painter, Printmaker, Illustrator, Oil Painting, Apprenticeship (Paperback), content leeched from Winslow Homer by the same "authors".
 * "If you like to pay for information you can get for free on the internet, this is the book for you. It does have a nice cover, and you can read it in the bathroom or on a long plane ride, so a hardcopy version has its advantages. Seriously, this book is nothing but a collection of the Wikipedia articles named in its title. It's actually one of the more convincing titles that Alphascript and Betascript Publishing have come up with - their goofy titles normally go on and on, this one sounds reasonable until the last three words. Search on "Half Man, Half Biscuit" for one of their stranger titles. Really, Alphascript and Betascript would have fooled a lot more people if they had spent 10 seconds working on each title. But with 54,000 titles between them, all "published" in the last year, there's really no time do so. More time is spent on picking a cover photo."
 * --CliffC (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting: 54,000 titles! It is pretty disgusting, but parasites are part of life. I wonder if anyone would know (if, for example, this were asked at WP:VPM) whether Amazon would care about their reputation. My hunch is, no they would not care, and would not want to evaluate whether a particular publisher was offering Amazon customers a reasonable deal. For some reason I don't find it worth worrying about, whereas I would go to a fair bit of trouble to combat the self-promoters who try to insert links and promotional edits into Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page obsessive monologues
I think User:71.68.251.209 has gone way, way beyond acceptable behaviour on Talk:Human evolution by constant repetition of a micro-minority POV. The sheer volume must be interferring with normal discussions. Naturally, Talk pages are more open than article pages but, for me, this behaviour is an abuse. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I remember that editor! I have archived Talk:Human evolution to remove the current soapboxing, and have put a suggestion that further rants should be reverted. Let's try that for a while, and if necessary I will attempt to attract the attention of an administrator if it becomes disruptive again. I notice that one of the IPs concerned has added related materal at The Incredible Human Journey (at least this diff). Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this article
Hi Johnuniq! I remember your watchful and astute contributions to Talk: Pederasty in ancient Greece, where I edited as User:Amphitryoniades. There is another discussion at Greek love, an article with a very troubled history. I hope you will keep your eye on it and give your opinion on the talk page there. I am exploring the options for an Afd, possibly a merge if there is some consensus about that, though a merge is highly problematic. McZeus (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yuck! A quick scan of Greek love has left me scratching my head wondering what it's all about. I have added it to my watchlist and will notice activity. I might get a chance to join in. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the article for AfD almost a week ago and you could miss the chance to vote if you don't act soon. McZeus (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I have been watching. I'm afraid I am developing a self-defense mechanism by avoiding some blatantly stupid areas of Wikipedia, and arguing to delete an article on such an "exciting" topic would probably not help my stress levels. I respect what you are trying to do, but I find a heavy dose of pragmatism is best in such situations. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I enter into a spirit of pragmatism and resignation from time to time (a lot of the time actually), but there are times when the individuals like us just have to stand up and say "I can see the emperor's addenda!" I'm sorry we are out of synch on this at the moment but maybe sometime in the future our moods will coincide again. Meanwhile the emperor struts his ridiculous stuff in front of his adoring fans and listening is not a commodity in wide use at such times. Cheers. McZeus (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your informative message on my talk page. I'm new at this and it was very helpful. Potcherboy (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reversion on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
I am reverting this edit of yours, which removed a POV-statement template which I had added to the article while a related discussion was/is still ongoing on the article's talk page. The discussion is at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and is linked from the tag which the template you removed and I have restored adds to the article. Your edit summary said, "tag not justified on talk; commonsense applies". Re justification, I had compliance with the WP:NPOV policy in mind when I added the template. If you do join the discussion on the article talk page, I'd appreciate info about what wikipedia policy or guideline relating to common sense you had in mind when you wrote that edit summary. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to go to this much trouble when making an edit. The article talk page is the expected place for a discussion, and I have commented there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a courtesy notification of a reversion. I appreciate it when others extend me the courtesy, as I may otherwise miss seeing a reversion masked on my watchlist by subsequent edits to the article in question. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Comment at "second enquiry" etc MfD
"If it's not an attack page, there is no reason to keep it" - could you explain what you mean by that? It would seem more valid (to me, at least) to argue for its deletion if it were an attack page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I would join the "oh so clever" style of writing, at the expense of clarity. The only reason to create a userspace page that records ill feelings between editors (particularly one with an editor's name in the title) is as an attack (yes, a mild attack, but it is what the page creator thinks is an amusing record of other people's stuff ups which is what Wikipedians know as an attack page). I see there is an argument that a record of diffs is needed to show that certain editors said stupid/offensive things. Keeping such userspace pages (when not engaged in preparing for an imminent noticeboard report) is also known as an attack. Since the only reason to keep it is for an attack, it has to be deleted. I was going to put this in the MfD but I see that the discussion there has moved away from the reach of mortals. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hi John. This is to notify you that there is a report at ANI where you are mentioned. It does not concern your actions but you may or may not wish to comment. Thank you and take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll probably comment in due course. I don't share the optimism expressed at WP:WQA that ANI will be a ready solution, but we'll see. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right. But I thought I would give it a try after three admins advised me to do so. Hopefully it will turn out some type of solution. Thanks again John. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ref closed
Thanks for cleaning up that unclosed ref! Boud (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to make that modest contribution. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to participate
User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I have recommended deletion because the current format of the list is unmaintainable and unhelpful fluff. I understand that this view will not prevail, but I am perplexed why anyone would want to keep an arbitrary collection of extracts from press releases. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello J.
You recently reverted and edit of mine at gargoyles with the comment, "no reason to doubt reference." As it turns out, the reference used can be found on line. And, as it turns out, I do have some issues with it. Pesznecker's section on dogs (p. 26) contains the sentence, " In Medieval times dogs often as shepherds." Which is not even a complete sentence. My task here is not to discredit and/or remove all references to Pesznecker's work here, but I do believe that questions can be raised about itk. On p. 32 Pesznecker states that some gargoyles were, "exaggerations . . . of existing creatures such as the platypus". Wiki says about the platypus that "When the Platypus was first encountered by Europeans in 1798," So, how could it have been the model for anything in Gothic architecture? For the record, pretty much all the references that I use are from my own library, situated all around me. Here are some of the titles to be found here. "Holy Terrors: gargoyles on medieval buildings", "Faces on Places: About gargoyles and other stone creatures", "The Gargoyle Book: 572 Examples from Gothic architecture", "Images of Lust: sexual carvings on medieval churches", "Gargoyles, Chimeras, and the Grotesque in French Gothic architecture", "Gothic Gargoyles", and "Gargoyles and Grotesques: paganism in Medieval church". I have a bunch more that deal with Gothic and Romanesque carvings, sculpture, architecture, etc. In looking at all the pictures, and even reading the occasional bit of text, I have not noticed a preponderance of dogs. Anyway, I just wanted you to understand where I am coming from. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think there was a misunderstanding there because I did not revert you: an IP editor removed the reference and some wikilinks, and messed up the "Dog" heading (IP diff). My edit (diff) simply restored the two wikilinks and the reference, and my edit summary was intended to be addressed to 84.9.122.89 (who had removed the reference). At any rate, I have already responded at Talk:Gargoyle where we seem to have reached agreement. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Life is good. Carptrash (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

genetic algorithm edit
I am guessing that was my mobile phone messing up again ?

I went in to add a comment, saw that the sig was missing part. Came out without changing or adding and went back in again and it was still showing as an incomplete sig. I am beginning to think this phone is being affected by a character it doesn't recognise. The sig had your name and then ([[User but the rest was not there. Weird

Sorry about that Chaosdruid (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have recently noticed a couple of people saying that weird things have happened when they edited a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Bristol Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/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.'' -- 184.59.23.225 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! I spoke up for you at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean I need hand holding. I have made a total of one edit to Bristol Palin after seeing the misguided fluff mentioned at WP:BLPN, so templating people arguing against you is not helpful. It's you plus one other editor arguing against several established editors, and consensus is not with you. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha? Consensus is not established by voting, and I'n not holding your hand. Frankly, you got templated so I could argue for a topic-ban if you revert sourced material again. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, but you should save it for an inexperienced editor. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq".The discussion is about the topic Bristol Palin.Thank you. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's puzzling that you think it somehow productive to claim that four established editors were edit warring with one other editor! I have made a total of one edit to the article, and since I'm not at all concerned by posturing, no good will come of your efforts. At any rate I see that the other editor and you have been banned from adding the material you wanted . That material (gossip re silly behavior by the 20-year old daughter of a prominent politician) is not suitable for use in Wikipedia, not because it's outrageous, but because it is so trivial and blog-like. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganges
Talkback: Talk:Ganges —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayen466 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 November 2010
 * Thanks but I had seen the commentary there before you left this note. As others have said, one day the world and the article will (probably) use the "Ganga" name rather than "Ganges", but Wikipedia is not the place to promote that usage. It is disruptive for people to continue to stridently argue the case. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers re: Kwamikagami
Thanks for your input re: Kwamikagami. I've clarified on a couple of points that you may have misunderstood (Wikiquette_alerts). My main points in response was (a)that it was not a 3RR or edit war situation, because I was attempting to account for the other side's objections (and this was visible in the edit summary of the edit you linked, for example); (b) Kwamikagami is an admin and should be held to a higher standard of civility.

Cheers again. -Danjel (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'll sit it out for a while because if I get involved in an ongoing discussion that may dissuade others from commenting. If you had posted the same material four times in 24 hours, you probably would have been blocked, not warned. The warning has to come before four times, and there definitely was a (minor) edit war at Roentgenium. Also, a good rule of thumb is that if it is necessary to discuss the addition of some text at a noticeboard and a couple of user's talk pages, as well as the article talk page, the addition is probably not warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article is that, in my opinion, Materialscientist has become too overly protective of it (among other articles).


 * Although I'm not a zealot, I believe in inclusionism, in that I believe that wikipedia should have comprehensive & notable information on a wide range of topics. I think that the controversy is notable enough as the physics community seems to be reporting the controversy regarding the discovery of naturally occurring Roentgenium (barely 24 hours and relatively notable blogs at New Scientist and Nature have reported it, a few hundred other less notable blogs have weighed in as well, it's only a matter of time before comment is written up in a major publication).


 * That's the reason why there's been so much discussion. The clash of the two different ideologies.


 * As for Kwamikagami, as I said on his talk page, I'm less bothered by the disagreement between Materialscientist and I and more bothered by Kwami's actions. He's an admin. I hold him to a much higher standard, and I believe justifiably so. -- Danjel (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see if anyone at WP:WQA agrees with your view. Of course admins should follow a high standard of civility, but you should not interpret straight talking as incivility. My suggestion is to drop the whole matter and never mention it again; pursuing it will not help your interaction with other editors. If anything develops re Roentgenium, someone will add some text, if it satisfies WP:IRS and WP:DUE. Some smart and experienced editors work on that page, and I suggest a little more listening would be in order.
 * I was just browsing ANI and noticed WP:ANI where someone complained about being blocked re 3RR where they say they had not violated WP:3RR (I have not looked at the situation). The swift response was that the block was justified since the user was engaged in an edit war, even if they had not exceeded the magic 3 reverts. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Responding with ad hominem to reasonably worded comments (I actually feel, in hindsight, that I was way too polite) isn't straight talking. I'm not dropping this without a positive resolution; editors should know that admins can't just act as they please.


 * Happy to listen, and you'll note that I've been asking people to contribute to the discussion. But do you see Materialscientist talking? No. Jdrewitt responded reasonably and the issue was resolved in the interim (by, as you suggest also, waiting and seeing).


 * Eagles 24/7's situation is about abuse of rollback rights. I wasn't even reverting. I was making different edits on the basis of talk page discussion (or attempts at discussion, met with stonewalling). Not really in the same boat. Not sure what you're trying to say here. -Danjel (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do not want my advice, I'm not sure what I can say. Yes, the ANI report I mentioned was about a much different case (as is clear since it was at ANI), but assuming the initial replies are correct, the user was blocked for edit warring despite no technical 3RR violation. The removal of rollback was a separate issue. At any rate, you are quite correct to point out that my analogy, like all analogies, is flawed since clearly the two cases are not related. Since I'm saying all this, I will repeat my thought that continuing on this issue will not work out well. Editors want peace and quiet, and a couple of people have looked briefly at the situation and do not think that a wikiquette issue was involved. Possibly things could have expressed better, but that's all. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, mate. Your advice has been received, and gratefully even if I disagree. It's given me a basis from which I can think about it. -Danjel (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind intervention with Concern troll
I moved some relevant material to the internet sockpuppet article, where I think it will be a useful addition. I agree that the definition of concern troll could be shifting -- I just feel that we need some WP:RS to discuss that aspect of Golb's activity, instead of relying on conclusions the reader might draw from the primary documents on display in a blog. I do think the jail sentence is notable, however, and will be a good addition to the other article. betsythedevine (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think you have done a good job by moving DUE material to Sockpuppet (Internet). We might not have heard the end of it; I will notice changes in either article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 Someone65 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I responded there, and will notice any further activity (no real need for a talkback, unless it looks like I've overlooked something). Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction to an edit?
You just undid my revision to William Connolley, which I had discussed on the talk page, without adding any discussion on the talk page. What's worse is that your justification appears to be mistaken. On the talk page, I suggested that a small impact paper the subject had written shouldn't be summarized in a full sentence of the article. But Ssilvers had disagreed with that, so, as discussed on the talk page, I didn't actually remove the sentence about the small impact paper. Instead, I tried to open discussion on the talk page about the point. My edit, as discussed on the talk page, addressed only accuracy and redundancy. Your edit summary when you undid my revision was '"small impact" does not mean "omit from bio"'. I believe that you made an error. Would it be possible for you to revised this revision you made? Thanks, Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Naturally I reviewed Talk:William Connolley before editing because the topic is contentious (and I happen to watch the article, and notice most changes and comments on the talk page). I might get an opportunity to join the discussion, but I don't see a need to do that at the moment because Ssilvers has expressed the situation very well, and I don't think I could add to it. I do not see any argument there against the reasoning given in my edit summary: even if your evaluation of Connolley's work were fully justified, there simply is no reason to cut out a reasonable description from a bio. We include descriptions of work done by people even when it is plainly nonsense (e.g. fringe theory proponents). Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. After ABC's talk page comments, I reviewed the deletion more carefully, and I see that ABC is right: the sentence was essentially repeated. So now I have included it only once, but I put it before the footnote. Thanks, ABC for sticking with it. Best regards to you both. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I suppose. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the undoing of my edits to The Rodley West Yorkshire Page...
Regarding the undoing of my edits to The Rodley West Yorkshire Page.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodley,_West_Yorkshire

I am fairly new to wikipedia. I am not fairly new to Rodley, having lived there for some time. Apologies if the posts seemed a little bit like marketing, however...

How does the nature reserve get to drop an external link in there, and the pub not?

I have re-included my edits and have included a nuetral citation for the last edit about the beer and music festival held in the village. I hope this is sufficient evidence to proove the comment noteworthy and informative. I have also removed the text link to the Owl at Rodley's homepage. I have however, left the comment in detailing the pubs one can visit in the area as again, this is simply informative and sways no preference to either establishment.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickyboi (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Editing Wikipedia is puzzling until one gains experience and reads some of the policies/guidelines. WP:5P is a good starting point, but you do not have to do much reading because the procedures are compatible with commonsense. Anyone can edit, and people want to promote their favorite thing, so there are procedures to limit the way material is expressed. Your first edit (diff) included "The spirit of the Rodley Community is really brought to life as two competing public houses join together to bring a weekend of interesting alcohol and entertaining Live Music..." with a couple of external links within the article. That style of writing is not appropriate since this is an encyclopedia, and as you can imagine articles would be awash with promotional fluff if it were not actively opposed. See WP:NPOV and WP:WTA for information on this kind of thing. I am watching Rodley, West Yorkshire and will notice further edits (which I see you have done). I will raise any issues on the article talk page (Talk:Rodley, West Yorkshire). Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply... I am studying the guidelines periodically as and when I get the time...

Still doesn't answer my question - How does the nature reserve get to drop an external link in there, and the pub not?

If you were wondering... I run the pub. I am not marketing it or promoting it any more than the nature reserve appears to be doing. One may wish to know where one can grab a drink in the village - if reading the wiki page for rodley.

I also have several high quality suitable images of rodley I wish to add. How would I become an confirmed user in order to be able to do so?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickyboi (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't got much time at the moment, but will give some quick thoughts. Try me later if you like. The best thing would be to add a section at Talk:Rodley, West Yorkshire outlining what you would like to do. If you did that, I would notice and probably reply (if I miss it, by all means remind me here). If you check the current article, you will notice that my most recent edit removed some fluff, including the link to the nature reserve website. See WP:EL for an outline of what external links are generally suitable. Re the images: see WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Please start with one image because you will find it is quite challenging to have an image accepted and used in an article. Considering that the article is very short, images may not be appropriate. It would be best if you would take an interest in the encyclopedic nature of the article and consider how you might develop it. Look at similar articles for ideas. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

off-topic content
Sir,

I request that you revert your last comment directed to me. Your example is important, and this most recent off-topic comment was made after the attention of the editors (including yourself) was drawn to WP:TOPPOST and the presence of off-topic content. Also, I'm not trying to avoid taking your point, is there some way we can talk about this without having the discussion permanently recorded by Google? Thanks, RB 66.217.117.73 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is apparently about Talk:Sentence spacing where my most recent comment was this. I have an interest in that article and occasionally monitor the talk page, but have not followed all the discussions in detail. Recently I tried to work out why there was so much activity on the talk page, and I started making some comments saying that precise proposals should be made, or the discussions should stop (per WP:TPG). I do not follow your reference to WP:TOPPOST. We are not here to perfect the talk pages, and if established editors make a comment with some deficiency, it is probably best to just leave the comment as-is, and focus on the point (which is to improve the article). My talk page is not the place to continue (unless you wish to draw my attention to a problem with my comments, in which case you would have to spell it out without worrying about possibly offending me). If the above "this" comment concerns you (is that you one you mean?), I am happy to remove it, but its point remains: the article talk page is only for discussing specific proposals about improving the article, and general back-and-forth about the topic should stop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about continuing on your web page, so perhaps you are not aware that Google currently is taking snapshots of four websites that are mirroring this web page. FYI, the current dates of the data are:
 * 21 September
 * 27 October
 * 20 November
 * 23 November
 * Yes, we are not here to "perfect" talk pages, but WP:REFACTOR states, "Discussion pages that are confused, hostile, overly-complex, poorly structured, or congested with cross-talk can discourage potential contributors and create misunderstandings that undermine fruitful discussions." My reference to toppost was intended to mean, "Make a new heading for a new topic".  I have found your opinions to be substantive.  RB  66.217.117.73 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you want. If you are saying that some content at Talk:Sentence spacing is unhelpful, my recommendation would be to manually archive the complete sections. If that is what you mean, and if you specify the exact names of the sections here, I would be happy to have a look and to archive them if it looks appropriate. Of course you could do that, but it might cause less fuss if I were to do the edits since I have not participated much in the discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to respond. In any case, I hope you won't makes the names of the living persons in the following message any easier to find with a Google search, in fact, I would welcome that you revert this post after you have seen it.


 * My work to keep the Talk page functional has led to controversy ...[redacted per request] RB 66.217.117.143 (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are unnecessarily sensitive and far too opaque (you still have not said what you want me to do ), but I am guessing that you would agree with this proposal to manually archive some of the talk page. I asked for opinions because I could not see anything that really warranted my unannounced intervention. If there is no negative response I will probably complete this in 24 hours (maybe longer, I expect to be occupied elsewhere). Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Expert retention - Peer review
Dear Johnuniq. Thank you for your understanding and offer to help. I assume you are a Wikipedia administrator. I am glad that administrators are so thorough and concerned about the integrity of wikipedia. However, maybe it is a good idea to be a little bit more polite when it is obvious that someone like me has trouble to immediately understand the jungle of wiki rules and ways of posting articles. I certainly don't have your response in mind (your message to me was encouraging) and I fully understand why the two administrators I discussed my article with have to be strict. I am a scientist, I am in charge of putting up a conference, and I have been approved to create a wiki webpage on the conference itself. There are good reasons why this should happen and there are many reasons why my article submission should be improved. But labeling my actions on wikipedia with tags like "advertising" or "spamming" is over the line. I don't know if you can or want to discuss this with other administrators, but this is not what I am used to in my scientific environment. I can tell you I am exhausted. How in the world would I be able to convince my colleagues to even look at and edit articles on scientific topics in wikipedia. Worst case scenario is that their contributions get labeled as "vandalism", IP addresses get blocked, and their institutes (employers!) get notified. Please think about the potential consequences and discuss it with your fellow administrators. Ebieberich (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just a humble editor (not an administrator): Wikipedia is a remarkable place where we are all equal, although when it comes to dirty work, admins are more equal than others. It is quite normal for ordinary editors to leave explanations/advice such as my comment on your talk page, and in fact most admins have too much work to do, and it is quite hard for them to find time to write detailed explanations. The responses you received at User talk:RHaworth and User talk:Orangemike show that they have tried hard to help, despite the fact that you are still unsure of how to proceed. There is no practical way for Wikipedia to make special arrangements for articles on certain topics, such as scientific conferences. As I said before, there is a constant bombardment of new articles from enthusiasts who want the world to know about their latest thing, whether it is a charity, political promotion, sales gimmick, or hundreds of other things. Accordingly, every article (even those for "good" causes) must satisfy the standard policies, primarily notability, but also verifiability and neutral point of view, and others. In essence, the topic of an article must be recognized by reliable sources as being sufficiently "notable" that the sources have written about the topic, and statements in the article must be capable of being verified by citing a reliable source, and language must be neutral (not promotional and not unduly critical). It is fine to say that "X is the best [or worst] whatever" if reliable sources verify the claim, but the normal gushing text that is seen on most organization's website is not suitable here. The best thing you could do would be to ask a WikiProject for help, as I outlined on your talk page. An alternative would be to find an active editor with an interest in the field (someone who has edited relevant articles). Unfortunately these suggestions will be hard to implement in practice because of your specialized topic.
 * Here are some quick thoughts re your draft at User:Ebieberich/sandbox (we speak pretty bluntly here, so whereas I would like to help, I have to be honest): Sorry, but the text is exactly what should be on an organization's website, and is not suitable for Wikipedia. Language like "a vibrant platform" is not neutral; while such expressions could easily be cleaned up, the core content is clearly a promotion of the conference with very little general encyclopedic value. Details such as when the conference occurs, or what activities take place, are not suitable (they should be on the official website). Suitable content would include what independent reliable sources have written about the conference. Sorry to bring this bad news, and by all means ask for other suggestions if you like. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That helps. I have substantially changed the article, but it looks as if RHaworth still thinks it won't be notable. Well, surely he is right because many important scientific conferences are not referenced by other significant and reliable sources (I mean when do you read about a smaller conference in journals or newspapers?). Any insignificant celebrity who falls into oblivion in a couple of years will have enough referenced publicity to block space on wikipedia while important conferences get slashed. That can't be true! Happy Holidays anyway. Ebieberich (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that what you describe is an unfortunate side effect of Wikipedia's procedures. I sometimes visit articles on wrestlers or singers or other topics, while following the trail of a vandal, and it can be pretty disheartening to see some of the rubbish on Wikipedia: well sourced, notable trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

re:Talk:Race and intelligence
Hi - thanks for the message. I would not try to archive that again, because it really is out of process since there's automatic archival of threads 14 days old.

Listen, let them feel like they're having their say, even though the manner in which they're saying it is so over-the-top that nobody can hear their actual words. Collapse boxes around those long lists of cites might help for the sake of space on the page, and they're certainly not out of process to add.

I'm sorry I couldn't be much help, and I know you're frustrated. Hang in there. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   04:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to investigate the issue at the moment...
Johnuniq,

While I will continue to respect your opinion, I find your last post in talk:sentence spacing, that began with the words that are now the header of this section, unconstructive. IMO the post ignores previous repeated requests I have made regarding your use of off-topic commentary, and repeated requests to make new headers for off-topic content. Rightly or wrongly, I expect you to be an exemplar for Wikipedians.

The non-discussion in "How a Variable-Width Font Works" typifies an on-going problem. There are seven responses in this section, not a single one that is on-topic. For my part, I have made a sincere effort to redirect the off-topic commentary back to the topic at hand. IMO your involvement has been neither helpful nor reasonable. If you don't have an opinion that "Part 5 of 11" of the Microsoft reference applies to proportional fonts; then either form an opinion and join the discussion, or don't post in this section. Do you have a problem with that?

Regarding your objection that I have not been clear in what I wanted, I don't agree that I have been anything less than clear in requesting that you avoid off-topic content, and apply new headers rather than add off-topic content. Please accept my apologies for any part of this post that goes beyond a neutral tone. Thanks, RB 66.217.117.36 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This refers to Talk:Sentence spacing.
 * You are writing too much and not directly responding to text written by others. In my comment that you mention above, I point out that you had posted 8 times in 24 hours on the talk page of an article concerned with the practice of using one space or two spaces between sentences. Furthermore, those posts came after a lot of other talk page activity; that much discussion is not warranted.
 * May I make a suggestion? Regular editors here see far too much irrelevant commentary, and their brains go into automatic after reading a couple of off-topic sentences. You are inadvertently obfuscating your point because you preface it with too much extraneous material. For a practical illustration of what I mean, I suggest that you should either comment here about my style (and if you like, request opinions at WP:WQA), or comment at Talk:Sentence spacing on a single point that relates to improving the article. It would be best to not mention jargon like "BRD" because it only obfuscates your point. For example, if you think something in the article should be changed, just clearly describe the change, then explain what is wrong with the old text, then explain why the new text is better (with any references). Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

re: WP:TALK policy, including off-topic content and make new sections for new topics
Johnuniq,

Policy applies to both the novices and the experienced Wikipedians such as yourself. WP:TALK notes, "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration."

I have written to you twice about inappropriate posts on the Sentence spacing talk page, [here] and [here]. Each of these two posts were initiated to draw attention to your off-topic content and failure to make new sections for new topics. Yet the only response to date is a one-sentence defense of the right of "established editors" to have "some deficiency" in their posts.

In my opinion, your insistence that WP:TALK policy doesn't apply to you has disrupted the talk page. We are now at the first stages of dispute resolution. Physically, it is not difficult to click on the "new section" link, and type in a few words. Mentally, such an action may require clarity of thought, and possibly experience in factoring. However, as another human being, it is not necessarily a good idea for me to tell you in detail what I want you to do. That does not mean that I have not made a request for behavior change.

Sincerely, RB 66.217.117.192 (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what have I done that is of concern to you? I'm sorry, but I cannot work that out. Please tell me which talk page (here or Talk:Sentence spacing or elsewhere), and tell me the time stamp or a brief extract from the comment so I can search for it. Also, please tell me what the problem is.
 * I made a blunt comment to you ("I cannot see any proposal for an improvement to the article. Please provide such a proposal or stop posting comments."), but such bluntness is normal here, particularly after my prior polite request (visible in above diff). Is that the problem?
 * Apart from any possible problem from me, I thought that you had an issue with some text written by other editors which referred to external parties. And above I offered to manually archive the text to remove it from public view. I went to a fair bit of trouble to do that, first obtaining consent from all parties, then doing the archiving, and I put a "no index" tag at the top of the archive so Google will not index it because you expressed concern about that. Did I misunderstand, and it was something else you wanted me to do? Of course WP:TALK applies to me. What is the dispute that requires resolution? If you use direct language to tell me exactly what the problem is I would be in a better position to respond. My reference to "some deficiency" was to say that we do not normally refactor comments, particularly those made by other editors. I thought there was a disagreement (not involving me) at Talk:Sentence spacing where editors had reverted your attempts to refactor their comments, and I was just saying that we normally do not try to correct a deficiency in comments. Then (above) I gathered that you wanted some material removed, which is when I suggested the archiving, and which has effectively hidden the text (which, again, came from other editors and is not related to me). Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are currently experiencing a near-total breakdown in communication, so my responses will be limited, and focused on getting agreement.


 * Thank you for agreeing that WP:TALK policy applies to you.


 * Do you agree that in a general sense, off-topic content is contrary to WP:TALK policy?


 * Do you agree that if Editor A creates a section titled "BRD discussion for edit 402814700", and that Editor A provides a diff to [diff], and that Editor A identifies the number of bytes that were removed by the diff, and that Editor A states, "Please begin the BRD discussion for the revert to 402814700"; that Editor A did not invite a discussion about edit 402828532 [diff here]?


 * Do you agree that if Editor B wants to talk about Editor/Admin C's introduction of the phrase, "Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle", and the subsequent use by Editor A of the mnemonic "BRD"; that it would be reasonable to begin such a discussion in a new section, perhaps titled Application of the phrase "Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" and the mnemonic "BRD"?


 * I hope you will find that all three of these questions can be answered with the word, "Yes". Thanks, RB  66.217.117.68 (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume that I am one of Editor A/B/C, and you believe I did something wrong. However, I do not see why you won't simply tell me what the problem is, and what you want me to do. I guess you are talking about my comment (with "23:59, 17 December 2010" UTC timestamp) at Talk:Sentence spacing (diff). Part of that comment was "there is no urgency to this matter so 8 posts in the last 24 hours is not helpful to the encyclopedia (particularly, given all the previous discussion on this and related issues)". The article in question concerns whether sentences should be separated by one or two spaces: it is a not a fast-developing field, and making many changes to the talk page (and on other pages such as here) causes too much trouble for other editors. You may get better results if you focus on one issue at a time, and allow several days for other editors to respond to that one issue.
 * Re your question about WP:TALK: May I suggest that you assume I have a good grasp of Wikipedia basics. Please speak directly: if you think I have breached some guideline, say so, and provide details. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never questioned your grasp of Wikipedia basics; in fact, I have said that I will continue to respect your opinion. The issue momentarily is that because you were either unwilling or unable to respond to the three questions, we have made no progress in building consensus.  Regarding your viewpoint that I have not stated a problem and a resolution, I've added a subsection here that documents that I have used the words "off-topic" ten times without a response.  I wonder if it is possible that you re-read the posts including the title of this section and consider the possibility that they clearly state a problem and clearly state an appropriate behavior.  RB  66.217.118.116 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In the comment of 07:16, 27 December 2010 which is in [this diff], you give a diff from 07:37 14 December and ask, "Is this the problem?" Wrong question. It is one of the examples of the problem, an example that I have discussed repeatedly. At 09:40 14 December I replied, "I don't know why responsible Wikipedians are making off-topic comments in this section. I have already drawn attention here to WP:TOPPOST."

At 00:42 23 December 2010, I said in a post to you, "The non-discussion in 'How a Variable-Width Font Works' typifies an on-going problem. There are seven responses in this section, not a single one that is on-topic.  For my part, I have made a sincere effort to redirect the off-topic commentary back to the topic at hand...If you don't have an opinion that 'Part 5 of 11' of the Microsoft reference applies to proportional fonts; then either form an opinion and join the discussion, or don't post in this section.   Do you have a problem with that?"

To move this discussion forward, please answer the question, "do you have a problem with that?"

Thanks, RB 66.217.117.171 (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are concerned that you created Talk:Sentence spacing, and you say there were seven responses, none of which were on-topic. And on my talk page you are suggesting that if I do not have an on-topic comment, that I should not post in that section? Yes, of course I have a problem with that suggestion. It is standard at Wikipedia that people post all sorts of things on talk pages, and other editors often respond with a comment on general principles such as whether the original post is helpful per WP:TPG. If you believe a particular message is relevant to the article, you need to briefly explain that relevance. I have had a lot of trouble following what you want on my talk page, so perhaps similar problems occur on other talk pages? I suggest restricting yourself to a very small number of posts per page per day because other editors cannot spend a great deal of time pondering multiple comments, and please write directly: say what you mean. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq,


 * Regarding the first sentence of your previous post, my concern is incorrectly stated; my concern is that you need to agree to stop your inappropriate participation in that discussion. The second sentence is confounded with an unrelated topic (see [here], and so therefore are the third and the fourth sentences.  The fourth sentence is interesting and could be relevant, but it has technical problems; and I see no attempt to work together to resolve the issue: "your insistence that WP:TALK policy doesn't apply to you has disrupted the  talk page."  Regarding the fifth sentence, the point is off-topic and your concern has been addressed repeatedly--feel free to start a new section to discuss.  The second clause of the sixth sentence appears to be what is known as "casting aspersions" ([ref])--the point is that I think that you should avoid the appearance of casting aspersions.  Included in the off-topic content of the seventh sentence is a point that we have not discussed, feel free to start a new section to discuss.


 * As to the first clause of the sixth sentence, I agree, and this is objectively documented [here]. The record shows that I have tried many avenues of communication: initially a short hint, secondly a short direct request, a letter-style post, asking questions to narrow our differences, detail documentation of the history of the problem, specificity, repetition, examples of the problem, citing policy, patience with your lack of understanding, patience by ignoring new off-topic commentary, and a call for behavior change.


 * The point of this post is that we are engaged in dispute resolution and I don't see you working on reducing our differences of opinion. RB  66.217.118.109 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I have cast any aspersions; as you disagree, you might want to request a review at WP:WQA. Regarding your apparent request that I stop an "inappropriate participation in that discussion", I am confident that my participation has not been inappropriate. As you disagree, please supply a diff showing the exact comment you are referring to, with a brief explanation of why it was inappropriate. Please do not repeat your completely unfounded claim about an insistence that WP:TALK does not apply to me, particularly when above I wrote "Of course WP:TALK applies to me" (00:08, 24 December 2010 UTC). Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, . This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.     Thank you. RB  66.217.117.24 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to try an off-line communication. My first message to you  [here] said, "  s there some way we can talk about this without having the discussion permanently recorded by Google?"  Please respond to the question.  Thanks, RB  66.217.117.118 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. Most Wikipedians have a strong preference for on-wiki, open communication. The convention is that on the rare occasion that something private needs to be communicated, editor A will use the "E-mail this user" link in the sidebar to send an email to editor B. B may choose to reply by email, or may respond on the talk page of A, or may choose to do nothing. For this to work, both A and B need to have registered accounts with an email address in their preferences (most editors use a throw-away address). Many editors participate in forums elsewhere where general discussions are standard, but on Wikipedia editors are generally not wanting a general discussion. Thank you for the offer, but there are literally hundreds of examples of pairs of editors on Wikipedia who have some disagreement, and the best response is to forget about it and focus on the article. There is no need for use to elucidate or resolve any difference. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your response does not directly answer the question, because you talk about email and general forums, and I mentioned neither. However, a key point is that you have not provided any alternate place to this talk page to continue. At the wikiquette page, I asked if there were any questions that you had asked that I had not answered. Again, I must interpret silence, in this case silence means that I have answered all current questions. Table 2 is an objective record of a communication problem. From my viewpoint, your response continues a pattern of raising new issues that do nothing to deal with the topic at hand. I have added a template. In this template I have pre-suggested a section header for you to discuss the relevance of this topic. We are currently in a dispute resolution process, and WP:WQA states, "Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution". RB 66.217.117.91 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed your change to my comment (do not use tags on talk pages; they are for articles which need to follow applicable policies/guidelines).
 * Since you have not said what you want, I exercised my imagination and took the trouble to explain (a) about the general preference for on-wiki, open communication, and (b) how sometimes editors will use email for something private; I also explained the email conventions.
 * If you have something to say, please say it. Leaving puzzles here (where I have to work out what you want) is not satisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Every edit comment in the history for this discussion has the words, "make new sections for new topics". But dispute resolution is more than a matter of what I "want"; it is a matter of how we agree to move forward; it is hopefully a matter of us leaving here with our ability to communicate and work together, better than it was when this discussion started.


 * I have requested behavior change. As a part of the process of dispute resolution, how about in your next reply you discuss what behavior change will follow?  Here are three examples: (Example 1) I don't agree to change anything, and I decline to discuss my understanding of WP:TALK policy regarding off-topic content and WP:TOPPOST.  I acknowledge that you think that I have a role to play regarding WP:TALK policy for off-topic content, and that you want me to make new headers for new topics.  Our communication channel is open.  (Example 2) I acknowledge that by adding extraneous ideas to existing discussions at Talk:Sentence spacing I could have slightly disrupted the existing discussions.  While such disruptive posts may be tolerated on Wikipedia, I am realizing that I've jumped into the middle of a talk page that I didn't understand and that you see these posts as majorly disruptive.  However, the off-topic nature of my last post remains more your problem than mine.  You have your choices and responsibility as an editor—following policy and the benefit to the encyclopedia—to keep the talk page functional; including "Off-topic?" templates, refactoring, and using "interruptions" to create new topic headers.  I likewise have rights as an editor; such as my option to request that you restore a refactoring, and finding policy citations to argue that "off-topic?" templates don't belong on a talk page.  Most of all, though, the communication channel between us is open, and I continue to welcome your feedback in improving the encyclopedia.  (Example 3) I apologize for disrupting the Talk:Sentence spacing talk page by placing my personal opinions in unrelated topics.  Inappropriate placement of my comments makes my own comments confusing, interferes with the topic being discussed, and discourages other editors and experts from participating in the original discussion.  I've seen this work ok on other talk pages, but in the context this was uncivil of me, and I want to be a role model for other editors.  I realize now that I jumped into the middle of conversations that I didn't understand.  I have refactored all four of the diffs identified in Table 2 to be under a new header.  I hope that this will promote discussion of the topics therein.  It is interesting that such a seemingly simple topic as Sentence spacing remains unexplained by scientific hypothesis, and I appreciate the many man-weeks you have spent in researching this article.  Please let me know if I can be of assistance in helping you to learn your way around Wikipedia.  Thank you for your sincerity and patience in working with me to improve the encyclopedia.(End of examples)


 * WP:WQA states, "Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution". RB  66.217.117.194 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am happy to be conciliatory, but I am not going to say anything that might suggest I was unfamiliar with the Talk:Sentence spacing discussions or the article content. I have in fact followed the topic for quite a long time, long before my first comment. I am also not prepared to suggest that any of my comments were no more than a personal opinion (although, of course, everything we write is in some sense just an opinion). While lurking and participating in various corners of Wikipedia I have built up quite a good understanding of day-to-day procedures and I would need very clear references to a particular comment and its problems before proceeding as suggested. As I mentioned, there are many examples on Wikipedia and in real life where people have different views and different outlooks. The correct procedure here is to work out a way to collaborate on article development—we do not need to resolve every difference of opinion.
 * The WQA report is archived here. Three independent editors made comments, and none of them suggested that any further action is required. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I support the idea that editors "work out a way to collaborate on article development". Do you agree that editors need to be able to communicate in order to collaborate?  Do you agree that Table 2 is an objective record of a communication problem?  RB  66.217.118.123 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, communication is very important, and is essential for collaboration. As I have previously explained (and as was mentioned by independent editors at the WQA report), it is hard to work out what point you are making, so I cannot judge whether Table 2 is an objective record (record of what?). Again, it would be much more efficient if you would just say what you want. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have said what I want. For example, I said recently,"Every edit comment in the history for this discussion has the words, 'make new sections for new topics'. But dispute resolution is more than a matter of what I 'want'; it is a matter of how we agree to move forward; it is hopefully a matter of us leaving here with our ability to communicate and work together, better than it was when this discussion started."Do you agree that this says what I "want"?  If not, please identify a deficiency that I can correct.


 * Table 2 is not opinion. Do you agree that Table 2 analyzes the words "off-topic" in discussion between myself and yourself, and that the record is objective?  If you don't agree, please explain why.


 * WP:WQA states, "Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution". RB  66.217.117.145 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what you want, so I cannot agree that a certain statement is what you want. As requested, instead of posing riddles, it would be better to just use simple language to say what you want. Wikipedia is very pragmatic: there is no point telling me what you want about anything other than what you want me to do. If you want to ask a question about something you want on another page, that would be fine—but you would be asking me a question. Re Table 2: Again, I am afraid that I have no opinion other than I do not find it helpful. This is not the place to ponder the past: just say what you want from me, in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I want you to "make new sections for new topics". And I want to improve our ability to collaborate.  What might help is if you would answer my questions and ask some of your own.  And focus on moving forward.  For example, in order to build agreement regarding our ability to communicate, please answer the question that you didn't answer last time,
 * "Do you agree that Table 2 analyzes the words "off-topic" in discussion between myself and yourself, and that the record is objective? If you don't agree, please explain why.
 * RB 66.217.118.38 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re your requests: Thank you for using plain English. However, there is no context, so your meaning is still unclear. I have a good grasp of how to behave in general, and how to behave at en.wikipedia in particular. Accordingly, I do not think I need any advice on making new sections for new topics. If you are suggesting that we collaborate somewhere, you should spell it out. I have said all that is necessary regarding Table 2. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of the words "off-topic"
Analysis of the words "off-topic" in discussion between RB and Johnuniq

Summary: RB has used the words "off-topic" ten times. In five replies, Johnuniq has responded with those words zero times.

Mnemonics used below are: Johnuniq (JQ), Talk:Sentence spacing (Talk_SS), and User talk:Johnuniq (UTalk_J).


 * JQ: 07:37 14 December 2010, Talk_SS: first JQ post in "How a Variable-Width Font Works"


 * RB: 09:40 14 December 2010, Talk_SS: "off-topic comments"
 * JQ: 10:11 14 December 2010, Talk_SS: no response regarding "off-topic"


 * RB: 22:54 14 December 2010, UTalk_J: New Section: "off-topic content"
 * RB: 22:54 14 December 2010, UTalk_J: "off-topic comment"
 * RB: 22:54 14 December 2010, UTalk_J: "off-topic content"
 * JQ: 00:53 15 December 2010, UTalk_J: no response regarding "off-topic"


 * JQ: 23:59 17 December 2010, Talk_SS: first JQ post in "BRD discussion for edit 402814700"


 * RB: 00:42 23 December 2010, UTalk_J: " repeated requests I have made regarding your use of off-topic commentary..."
 * RB: 00:42 23 December 2010, UTalk_J:  "not a single that is on-topic"
 * RB: 00:42 23 December 2010, UTalk_J:  "I have made a sincere effort to redirect the off-topic commentary back to the topic at hand".
 * RB: 00:42 23 December 2010, UTalk_J: "I don't agree that I have been anything less than clear in requesting that you avoid off-topic content...".
 * JQ: 01:42 23 December 2010, UTalk_J: no response regarding "off-topic". The post uses the words "off-topic", but the usage is not a response.


 * RB: 13:19 23 December 2010, UTalk_J: New Section: "...off-topic content..."
 * RB: 13:19 23 December 2010, UTalk_J: "Each of these two posts were initiated to draw attention to your off-topic content..."
 * JQ: 01:42 00:08  23  24 December 2010, UTalk_J: no response regarding "off-topic content"


 * RB: 13:19 01:42  23  26 December 2010, UTalk_J: "Do you agree that in a general sense, off-topic content is contrary to WP:TALK policy?"
 * JQ: 07:44 26 December 2010, UTalk_J: Non-commital response does not use the words "off-topic".

RB 66.217.118.116 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first message here was nearly two weeks ago and I still do not know what the problem is. My first reply to you on this page is above with timestamp 00:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC) (diff) and I suggested what I thought was the issue, but now I'm wondering if it is something else, namely this comment I made at Talk:Sentence spacing where I said "This is not a page for protracted discussions. Please make a brief comment that is compatible with WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM, and make it clear what you are proposing as an improvement to the article." Is that the problem? What do you want me to do? Please speak directly. If you want me to redact the "07:37, 14 December 2010" comment, my response is I do not see any reason to do that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Table 2: Analysis of the words "off-topic", with Selected Links
Table 2: Analysis of the words "off-topic" in discussion between RB and Johnuniq, with Diffs for Talk_SS

Summary: RB has used the words "off-topic" ten times. In five replies, Johnuniq has responded with those words zero times.

Mnemonics used below are: Johnuniq (JQ), Talk:Sentence spacing (Talk_SS), and User talk:Johnuniq (UTalk_J).

RB 66.217.117.168 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

replies to data analysis
I wonder if you intended for [this diff] to be a reply to a data analysis. There were no opinions expressed in the data analysis, and there was no discussion about the data analysis in your reply. For my part, it makes it difficult to reply because (1) I must guess what topic it is that you are discussing, and (2) any reply I make would be off-topic. RB 66.217.117.171 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are nearing the end of our discussion. Of course my above reply (07:16, 27 December 2010) was intended as a reply. This page is not a place to engage in endless discussion. Just state whatever your point is. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In a post on another topic (here), you ask, "And on my talk page you are suggesting that if I do not have an on-topic comment, that I should not post in that section?" Please refer to the comments I have previously made, which are [here].


 * The point is that an off-topic response on your user page is an example related to a problem being discussed in regard to Talk:Sentence spacing; but it is not itself on the Talk:Sentence spacing page, so it is not in the scope of the current dispute resolution. RB  66.217.118.109 (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is important, please rephrase your message because I do not understand what it means. We do not have to agree about everything. Please just focus on what you want me to do and why. If you want me to do something, you will need to clearly say what it is. If the request is that I not participate at Talk:Sentence spacing, my response is that I see no reason to comply with that request, and of course any participation should comply with all of Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to move the newer comments (those posted after my last message) to the end (so it would be obvious which messages were visible when I posted). However, it looks like some of the section names are used as anchors at WQA, so I'll leave everything here. I do not think I can add anything helpful here, since most points seem to have already been covered. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment
V. V. Sorry. If gone against rule. but help out Johnuniq, i will not be active in wikipedia for sometime.Now you know the case. Remove your stop message so that helper coming to rescue my pages may not get wrong signal from your stop message on my user page. & also - Find out the way pls. . Regards- Dralansun (talk) Regards- Dralansun (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
 * It looks like has posted essentially the same message to well over a hundred talk pages in the last 24 hours. The above is their response to a warning I left at their talk page.
 * I have removed the bold from your message and inserted a header (please use "new section" at the top to add a new comment, and see WP:TP to learn how to add a signature with four tildes.
 * You need to stop adding a message about the same topic to different pages because it is disruptive. I suggest you do nothing for 24 hours and see what responses you receive. After that, if you want, choose one place to continue your request, here if you like. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's Alaska
Sorry about that edit and thanks for the revert. I didn't see that, though knowing the history of this article I guess I should have fully read through the talk page first. My second edit was to update the source as the NPR one was a dead link; I will leave it up to you if you want to put that one back. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your great response. I decided to just remove the deadlink ref because it seemed low value and there is already a better ref for the same point. But I included your link in my edit summary in case anyone wants to add it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin
Thanks for the advice. I will be cautious. I posted some suggestions that I hope are safe. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have responded at Talk:Rosalind Franklin, and will notice any further developments at the article or its talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

External links in technical articles
You may have something to contribute to discussion concerning external links in technical articles - Talk:Particle_swarm_optimization and now External_links/Noticeboard --Kvng (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I gave a fence-sitting comment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Request
Johnuniq, thnks to care and suggest. meanwhile,can u pls ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject India. To visit  http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/   and decide about two pages of mine  Naresh Sonee & Brahmand Pujan notability? Or why dont u come forward? I only need a start up of two lines on Naresh Sonee & Brahmand Pujan - if u feel the article are justified for attention and you agree to the notability as per hindi news papers.news reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dralansun (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 December 2010
 * Sorry, but you are not currently working in a collaborative manner and I have other things to do. Do not worry about it now, but for the future, if people put warnings on your talk page, you should respond rather than quickly deleting them. You do not have to respond, and you are quite entitled to delete any message on your talk page (with certain exceptions), but being unwilling or unable to respond to other editors does not assist the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. You might also want to examine WP:BIO to see the policy regarding notability of people – that determines whether an article on a person is warranted. That question is usually resolved by examining reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on my edits
Hi, Johnuniq,

I see that while you deal with many other tedious issues (noted on this talk page of yours) you have also kept an eye on articles related to the August 2010 Race and Intelligence ArbCom case. It has been dismaying to observe how little enforcement of the ArbCom decision in that case has taken place since the decision was announced. The administrators are volunteers, and they are busy. By and by some contentious editors and their sock drawers and meat puppets have been shooed away from those articles, but still the articles are visited by new I.P. editors who are apparently recruited off-wiki, and much work needs to be done to fix the articles. I have hoped to help the project improve by keeping source lists that all wikipedians can use to improve articles. As I resume article editing after updating those lists again, I would appreciate you keeping an eye on my edits to make sure that I am working collaboratively with conscientious editors here. I will take care to consider carefully any advice you have for me about editing on contentious topics. Wishing you all the best in a happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is dismaying to see how poor are Wikipedia's defenses against POV warriors (and thanks for your efforts). I have been occasionally glancing at some of the R&I articles, but have retreated due to the smell. I will try to keep a closer eye on things, but I'm sorry that I probably won't be much help. I will watch your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Aquib
A user wants me to revert the name change from medieval islam to caliphate. Whats your opinion?Someone65 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded at your talk (I see that the matter was raised there). Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Real life
Nothing to do with real life. Perhaps I am at fault for not making it clear. The interactions were on an internet forum. Of course I will drop it, because it seems to be engendering paranoia. I did not think that mentioning my chancing on these theories over a decade ago, on an internet forum, in which Nina was active, was intended as a provocation. It was meant to explain to Moonraker, who doubted it, that I have had a long interest in the subject, reactivated when Tom made his appeal for some help over this article a year ago, and I obliged by stepping in to collaborate on it. I left wikipedia with the article in place, in early November, and only checked back in late December when I managed to get an internet connection (I'm travelling) to check, and found (check the archives) that he was the object of some intensive crossfire. So I've wasted a couple of weeks trying to ensure that the fatigue of 9 months isn't mocked by the potential destabilization caused by this relentless onslaught of methodologically flawed challenges. That is my real motivationb. Perhaps unnecessary, and I can resume my journey. I see many good and experienced editors have since come in, and the article certainly does not require my presence any more. RegardsNishidani (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation; I see what you mean. Even though it was just a forum and not real life, it may be better to not discuss the matter here. I would be very concerned if you were to move on—we need your expertise. Please continue with your help. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please note them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Perhaps at least there may be some quiet at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question while we are all involved at arbitration... Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia turns 10
The tenth anniversary of Wikipedia is here! Time to spread all the anniversary cheer! Yeah! Ten years, whew! That's a lot in World Wide Web Years!-- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage.    03:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor difference
I didn't ask whether there were any minor changes in the name of the hospital. I asked for someone to confirm what the name of the hospital was when the President was born, so the discrepancy could be resolved. When I saw two different names for the hospital in which the President was born, I was well aware that a name change of the hospital may have occured. Especially since both names re-directed to the same wikipage. And a thank you goes to User:Brangifer for clarfifing that for me. TonyO13 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)TonyO25
 * This is in relation to a brief discussion at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories undefined. I found an explanation for the name discrepancy, and Brangifer decided that it was worth adding to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on IP 66.217.x.x
The editor who has been pestering you for the last six weeks has posted to my talk page in an attempt to get my support. If you are interested you can see both the IP editor's post and my reply at User talk:JamesBWatson. My advice is to not feed the troll, that is to say ignore and delete any further talk page comments. I would consider blocking the user, but for the fact that they use such a wide range of IPs that the amount of collateral damage would be excessive. However, please let me know if there is further trouble, and if I can help I will. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time in checking this all out—I'm sorry you have been dragged into this nonsense. I read your comments at your talk with interest, and I will take your advice. It's all been a bit surreal, but I naively thought that taking a bit of pain here would save others the difficulty of dealing with the disruption at the article talk page. However, I think it's only provided encouragement. Johnuniq (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your beef with Nina
Good luck, but I fear you'll get about as much response as LessHeard did. After all, Wikipedia policies don't apply to those granted special insight. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Foster, thanks, I fixed the link. Paul B (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Commendable
I appreciate your reasoned response at WP:NPOV/noticeboard re: Admin:Horologium. The editor has inflamed a terseness in my response which I regret. I needed to say that somewhere. I chose here.Buster Seven   Talk  13:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comment, but I see that reasoning is wasted in some cases. Discussion was at NPOVN. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative text
Hi John,

Just wanted to especially thank you for adding alt text in. That's not, of course, to suggest I am unappreciative of the other great work you're doing there, but I find alt text—and other such easy to implement but sadly too often neglected efforts to make articles more accessible—particularly important. Among Wikipedia's many merits, it has the potential to enable access for people with various forms of physical impairment in a way that simply has not been possible previously; which would make it yet more of a crime to not make the minor effort required to realize that potential. In any case: kudos for thinking of it and making that effort! --Xover (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Emissions trading link
When looking at the source for the link you deleted (or more accurately the edit history of the editor posting it), I had identified it as probable linkspam. Nevertheless, the statement in the article reads: "CO2 acts globally, thus its impact on the environment is generally similar wherever in the globe it is released. So the location of the originator of the emissions does not really matter from an environmental standpoint." while the statement in the cited source reads: "From a climate change perspective, the location of the reduction, avoidance, or sequestration does not matter: a ton of CO2 (or its equivalent in another GHG) reduced in the United States and a ton sequestered in another nation would have the same result on the atmospheric concentration of GHGs." which lookss to me to be directly on point (although seemingly contradicting statements about other pollutants later in the section).

Congressional Research Service reports are generally reliable sources, and the University of Arkansas is a reputable organization. Is it really necessary to bar relevant, reliable sources housed on reputable web sites because the motives of the originating editor are questionable? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, and I have undone my edit. I was particularly careful when undoing your formatting into a ref because I know you are an excellent editor, so I did scan the document. Stupidly, I missed the fact that you had put the page number in the citation, and as for many of the other links which I removed, the document was related to the topic but seemed unrelated to the precise text in the article. Sorry about the trouble. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No trouble. And conversely, I hesitated to dispute your deletion for the same reason. Also, although I had located the paragraph I quoted above, and mentally noted the page number, prior to deciding the link was salvageable, I neglected to include it in my ref-formatter and had to add it in a second edit. Thanks for reverting. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
 * 2) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
 * 3) NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
 * 4) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on . Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
That wasn't particularly subtle of me I suppose, but thank you for handling my questions tactfully. I think I understand much better now. Another question which I didn't ask was whether an editor who thinks he has violated the policy can save himself from a blocking by reporting himself and by trying to undo the damage himself. If sanctionless self-reporting were allowed, at the very least I imagine it would encourage editors who are concerned that they've violated the policy to seek administrative guidance on borderline issues. Do you think it would be a good idea to add a few words covering that issue? Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean, should we add some words to a policy to that effect, I would say no. That's based again on WP:BURO where we don't try to spell out everything, and we would not want to start a rumor that you can do something bad so long as you issue an apology. In the specific case, I have not looked at how bad the problem editor is, but it looks bad, and you are clearly acting in good faith to help the encyclopedia, so I would not worry. Repeating a problem is what really causes trouble—so long as that is avoided I don't think there is an issue. You could ask the opinion of that abuse volunteer you contacted, or email some admin, but I think it's ok. Johnuniq (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, well thank you. You've definitely lifted a burden from me. Please accept my sincere gratitude. -Thibbs (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the barnstar, thanks, although I didn't really do much and it remains to be seen if my suggestions had merit! At any rate, good luck, and I will keep a watch. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SPA essay
Hello John. A while ago I proposed a overhaul of the SPA essay. My basic point being that people don't really arrive at that page unrelated to some sort of tagging issue. I think the article needs to bring tagging more to the forefront and more towards the top of the article, all of the stuff about SPA definitions and behavior probably confuses the tagger or someone looking for guidance on whats a good use of the tag. No one has opposed or supported this overhaul, and I don't want to start a ruckus. What do you think? (see my talk page proposal for more details) --MATThematical (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be better if WP:SPA quickly explained what most people wanted to know. I have just reviewed the talk page, and I find myself strongly agreeing with my earlier comments, and I still have not seen any clear examples where the SPA tag has been abused (although I am sure it has happened, just as many problematic editors who have ended up banned have often misused WP:CIVIL in an attempt to parry those opposing them). I see no reason to rename the page, although I suppose you could try that idea at WP:VPR. I will see any activity at the SPA page or its talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Stability
I noticed you wrote “we need a period of at least a week where almost no changes occur before going to FAC” on the SAQ talk page. As far as I was aware (I could of course be wrong) this isn't a requirement: so long as the article isn't undergoing significant restructuring, or there's an edit-war going on, ongoing improvements aren't considered to be a problem under criteria 1e. Am I mistaken on this, or did you have something else in mind? --Xover (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should not have spoken in ex cathedra manner, and of course you are correct. I was thinking that there have really been a lot of changes lately, and while they are not edit warring and are just good copyediting, it seems a little unsightly to pick an essentially arbitrary moment while that process is ongoing and take Shakespeare authorship question to FAC. It would be good to get the job done, but I think the recent changes have been very beneficial and we would best demonstrate that the edits are complete by letting them peter out for a few days. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, when I spoke of a time frame I was only guessing at when everyone would be finished with their final run-throughs. It certainly wouldn't make sense to nominate while we're still actively working on it. My impression is that we're basically there, and changes are or about to peter out; and the final outstanding issue I'm aware of is the external links (which I intend to post about tomorrow). --Xover (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for attempting to instruct me in the ways of Wiki, an almost impossible task! I was extremely tired last night and finally quit because I was making so many mistakes. I'll look at that material later today and try to rewrite. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FAC is a strange place, but rather more productive than some other corners of Wikipedia! So far, so good... Johnuniq (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolution of the eye: Thanks Johnuniq, for your note on article v talk page notation
OK, Johnuniq. How does one ask for those with appropriate expertise, and in this case apparently an article which is part of various initiatives (topic based) to answer a query on veracity (or even controversy if it exists in this field regarding this particular question, though it seems one which is rather fundamental and probably well-known to physicists, spectrographers, electrodynamiticians and others)?

Do we now just wait for those with talk-page (rather than ordinary reading content) interest to consider the question raised?

And have you perhaps some better insight on this electromagnetism question you might give us?

Warmest regards,

Pandelver (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded at Talk:Evolution of the eye, and I will notice any further comments there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"When asking a question"
Re : Sorry, did you bother to read what I wrote? Before interrupting a discussion, I find it best to read the discussion in its entirety, and try to ensure that my interrupting the discussion won't take it off track.

Please don't bother trying to fathom why I was threatened with a block, or take the discussion off track. The editor that made the threat needs to explain it.

Here's where you might be able to help, though the discussion to this point doesn't give me much hope: These WP:OWN problems happen. This one has gone better than some, worse than others. As no one has addressed it during the Musical theatre drama, it's almost guaranteed to come up again with the same editors across the articles they feel are theirs. Not my problem though. What is my problem is that it will occur somewhere else, with completely different editors. How to better handle it? Some of the things I tried out with the Musical theatre drama seemed to work well, I just wasn't sure at the time I was trying them. Some of the suggestions others made during it were good as well. What suggestions do you have? --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for any offense—that was unintentional. I don't think I can add anything useful to my first comment at that page, although it may be helpful to note that your contributions are very valuable, but even valuable contributors can occasionally stray from the best path (I have certainly made mistakes). Re block threats: I have no opinion or interest in that matter; my comments were with regard to the best outcome for the article. Re WP:OWN: I think you are overstating the case—just because those who have provided the article content object to a change does not necessarily indicate there is an ownership problem. Particularly since WP:EL is a guideline, I would not use it to upset the collaborative nature of this project. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

percent encode URL, Sonja Barend
John, thank you so much for your help. Morgen gezond weer op! Drmies (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

EL Dispute
I'm trying to fix at this moment. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This relates to of your addition of Disputedtag to a section in the WP:EL guideline. I have commented here. There is no need to tag a section just because you want to discuss some aspect of it on the talk page. And there can be no dispute until the discussion has progressed to the dispute stage. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edward Davenport
You removed the section relating to The King's Speech stating that articles should not be used to amplify gossip. The articles were from rrespected and reliable newspapers and given up-to-date information on Edward Davenport's activities. I have edited them slightly and put them back up. Please contact me if there's anything specific you don't like.WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 22:42, 09 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although a comment at the talk page of Edward Davenport would normally be the place for this (and you might click "new section" at the top of a talk page to add a new topic—that puts it at the bottom).
 * Your edits look good, and we seem to be in agreement because you did not restore the gossip. However, the article has a problem in that the "King's Speech" section you added is immediately after a sentence that was already in the article, and which says essentially the same thing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article
You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiLove
Hello Johnuniq, please see my reply at Gadget/proposals. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

POV and COI
Regarding the tags on the Masimo page, I don't understand. From Wiki NPOV dispute: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable..." "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Please identify the specific statments, words, or citations that you think are not neutral, or remove the tags.--Deviceauthor1 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please raise any issues at the talk (discussion) page of the article concerned. For reference, I have raised the issue of these pages at WP:COIN. I have not recently tagged any articles; presumably you are referring to some reverts I have recently performed. If you look at the history of the page, you will see my reason in the edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Will address there.--Deviceauthor1 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be an RFC on the issue first, and ArbCom rules on editor behavior, so I'm not sure this will be as helpful as you hope (because apart from the original misuse of resources, there has been no bad behavior—a couple of misguided incidents, yes, but no systematic and uncorrected bad behavior). Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup
Thanks for all your work on this. Since the purpose of this page was to present evidence of edits Jagged 85 made after Syncategoremata had complained to him, I have taken the liberty of moving your pointer to my recent comments to here.

Given the recent scepticism expressed by some editors about whether the damage caused by Jagged 85's edits really is as serious and widespread as the editors certifying the cause for concern in the RFC/U had claimed, it would seem worth while to keep adding further instances as they come to light. However it would be necessary to make sure that any such further instances really were incontrovertibly poor use of sources. If there were any half-reasonable argument that they were not, it would provide the skeptics with powerful ammunition for claiming that the whole collection of evidence had been discredited. David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for cleaning that up. Of course I had completely overlooked the point of that page. And yes, we must only record examples of clear misuse of sources, although it is unfortunate that nearly all the examples require some thought—the reader has to contemplate the text before seeing how the source is misused. Johnuniq (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you credited me with Tom's change!
Small point. If you examine the struck-out copy on the SAQ talk page, the rephrasing as per Ealdgull's suggestion for 'Shakespeare was born, raised' was done by Tom. I'm so confused by these multiple pages, I scarcely dare touch them any more. Cheers, and thanks for all this help over the last months. I'm pretty much done in.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Erk. I think I'll pretend I did this for some higher reason and not try to fix it because I am having enough trouble without backtracking. I'll probably be another hour fiddling with replies to the review, and do more another time (soonish). Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

evolutionary psychology
I'm currently trying to feed in material from EP textbooks, trying to give the page some meaty, well-sourced, on-topic material. I'm pretty sick of fighting over whether EP is testable or whatever, and I think that the fastest way I can improve the page is by avoiding the contentious points and just summarizing textbook material. Not surprisingly, I'm getting push-back even when I'm just summarizing EP material that doesn't have anything to do with hot-topic issues like gender or race. I know that you're not happy with all the editing that I've done, but I am trying to refocus my efforts on work that would be more productive. I somehow have the idea that you're the sort of level-headed editor who would get behind an effort to add textbook-sourced material to a page. What might I be able to do to have you on my side in that effort? Leadwind (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but at the moment I'm flat to the boards. I dropped in at the talk page just to see what all the fuss was about, and felt the need to add my comment about procedures. However I've got to give some attention to some off-wiki matters, and I'm occupied with another on-wiki issue. I would like to do something useful at Evolutionary psychology because I find it an interesting topic, and perhaps will get a chance in due course. Good luck. Johnuniq (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)