User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 6

Security issues
Hi, thanks for flagging again this issue. You are raising some valid points regarding security and, while we are moving away from the recruitment-by-email model and actually considering a global cut on permissions we give for surveys, we should definitely address these problems. I have an internal meeting scheduled this week to discuss subject recruitment policies and I'll add this item to the agenda. --DarTar (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
There is an incident you may be involved in. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have commented there that it looks like a complete misunderstanding. Johnuniq (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Abrasive remarks
I think your comments here were needlessly abrasive. For example, you said, 'Repeatedly linking to WP:NPOV is not helpful.' In point of fact, I only linked to NPOV twice in that talk page section, and to different sections. I suppose I could have said "(see the XXX section of the same policy)", but why waste so many words? It seems as though you were being critical for the sake of being critical in this instance, and I don't think that's conducive to the kind of atmosphere that talk pages are expected (or, perhaps, hoped) to be. I know we have opposing views on this matter, but let's try to be nice about it, okay? Jakew (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was blunt and was referring to the whole talk page rather than just that section, however I will take your concern into consideration in the future. I have commented further at the talk page, but there is no proposal for a change at this stage so perhaps further discussion is not required. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Female Genital Mutilation
There is a dispute over whether the comments you posted in support of my edits represent your final opinion on the matter. It would be extremely helpful if you could clarify whether the comments you made yesterday in support of my edits still apply in light of the comments which Jakew has added to the talk page since then, thanks. Vietminh (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I am watching and will return from time to time. I have re-explained my position at Talk:Female genital mutilation. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I apologize if it was an inconvenience or dragged you back into a discussion that you were looking to move on from. There was no debate in my mind over whether what you said still applied, and I agree with your thoughts on the consensus of terminology. I had no idea that there would be such a singular backlash to what seems to be a perfectly logical change. Thanks again.Vietminh (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have been lurking and occasionally commenting at that page for quite a long time, and will continue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

GNAA
On WP:ANI, where you say Would those supporting LiteralKa please review the highly deceptive language... etc. - does that include me?

If so, please note two important things; 1. I am not supporting that user. I'm opposing a block. There's a big difference. 2. I did. of course, read the background before putting my view - so your asking me to review things is a bit disingenuous.

I apologize if this seems like making a fuss; that's not what I intend. Indeed, that's why I'm posting here, not on the thread. It's just that your comment comes across as rather critical of me - and I'd guess others - who are opposing the block. If I'm misunderstanding, then I sincerely apologize. I'd be happy to discuss it; I'm hoping you'll see the difference here between supporting a user, and opposing what I believe an inadvisable admin action. I'd also like it clear that I am not supporting GNAA, and I don't want people to think that I was. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 08:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me—I must be getting insensitive because I did not think my comment at ANI would be seen as critical of anyone other than the editor I named. I meant the words as read at face value: would anyone supporting that editor please consider the material I presented [if they hadn't already done so]. I take your point that it may appear that I am accusing all those who opposed the block of missing something—sorry, that was not my intention. I don't want to start naming other editors because the conversation is sufficiently complex, but the indenting of my comment shows where I particularly wanted my message read. Also, as you say, it is valid to oppose a block (particularly one as unusual as this) without been seen as a "supporter" of the blocked editor. Again, sorry about the unintended implication—it's because I fully accept that people can have very good reasons for coming to a conclusion different from mine that it never occurred to me that my message could be construed as suggesting that those opposing the block must be supporters of the blocked editor, or must have missed something as obvious as the points I made.


 * This is not the place to debate the issue, but I would like to record that while the block is very unusual, after reviewing the situation I think the unusual circumstances warrant that response. Yes, the block was out of process, and yes, it was extraordinary (and if I were an admin, I don't think I would be quite that bold), but enwiki and simplewiki are being exploited by a group whose very mission is lulz through trolling, and the more the matter is debated, the sillier we look. The betrayal of the admin at simplewiki is beyond the pale with messages like "thank you so much mister", presumably to appeal to the good nature of that admin who, from their role, must take special trouble with people who can't express themselves in written English. Then there is the time I spent at WT:Deny recognition, when it turns out I was discussing the desirability of adding a picture of "A vandal at work" with a known troll. The normal processes of Wikipedia cannot deal with cases like this because the editor adopts the appropriate persona for the environment they wish to exploit. I don't want someone blocked because they wasted my time, but all things taken together suggest that the block, however unusual, is the best outcome for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary; I can understand the potential for misunderstanding; it doesn't bother me personally, I just wanted to let you know that there was the potential there.
 * I also understand the people supporting the block, and agree we shouldn't tolerate being messed about by trolls. But my overriding concern is that we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level, if you see what I mean. In a further comment, H. added that GNAA intends to out a bunch of people, including me, presumably in response to this, - so... and I don't mean to imply anyone would, but... should we respond to off-wiki threats, should we change our actions? I'm sure you'll agree we shouldn't. Well... the block reasoning sounds too much like "taking the law into your own hands"; too maverick. I hesitate to make an allusion, and I emphasize I'm not being accusatory, but...it's somewhat like a policeman who can't get the exact, acceptable evidence who instead plants something, to convict someone obviously guilty. Thoroughly well-intentioned, and likely to be beneficial in many cases, but... it's the thin end of the wedge that leads to a corrupt form of 'government' (for wont of a better term).  Chzz  ► 12:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are raising valid points. However, from my perspective, I do not think Wikipedia's procedures will reach perfection any time soon, and in fact there is ample evidence on the daily news that no system of governance works by any more than accident (although obviously some are worse than others). I would not want to see admins make a habit of shoot first and get agreement later (and I think the recent case whereby an admin blocked someone who was probably about to blocked by Arbcom did require at least a grumbled "won't do that again" acknowledgment, rather than "I was right so it's ok"). However, when someone is known to be a POV pusher for GNAA, and is known to have been shockingly deceptive to the point of feigning illiteracy in order to gain sympathy from admins at simplewiki, I am prepared to accept the right outcome with a minimum of bureaucracy. If this incident were the last thing that had to be fixed in order to make Wikipedia perfect, I would agree that proper procedures should be followed. However, what is the point of reversing a block in order to debate the merits of having trolls active in the encyclopedia? A GNAA topic ban won't stop the underlying troll problem, and AGF with a known troll would be absurd. There is no reason to think this block is the start of some precedent, so it does not concern me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Troll
Hi Johnuniq, thank you for your edit. Does the file should be deleted/removed from commons then? Lotje ツ (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the image to the extent that I would want to pursue its deletion, but if asked, I would say that I don't see any reason for WMF servers to host it. Also, it's very difficult to get a file deleted from Commons as they provide resources for all projects, so there would need to be a cross-project reason to remove it. Recently I have been trying to keep WP:DENY free from what I regard as an unhelpful image (see the comments on its talk page if interested), and in general I oppose anything which portrays vandalism or trolling as a fun activity—such portrayals do not help the encyclopedia. However, if you think this image is useful, you might like to post a message at Talk:Troll (Internet). Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the Category:Warning signs to the file. It might be the administrators feel this is not a good file and delete it. Or maybe there is a category for non enclyclopedic files, some kind a of blacklist or greylist. Lotje ツ (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Circuit dreamer's original research
Please see WP:NORN. - Glrx (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have commented, but I am not much help with regard to that user. I am now watching and will try to find some time; one problem is that a considerable period has elapsed since I worked with these topics. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I wish I had a lot more time, but that's not how the world works. - Glrx (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Signatures as autographs discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Autograph_as_signature_in_infobox Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I watch that page and saw your post. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing. Thank you. Glrx (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented at ANI, and I watch that page so will (probably) notice responses. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree Shaping -> Arborsculpture RFM 2
A second request to move the article "tree shaping" to "arborsculpture" has been opened. Since you have previously been involved in the subject, you may wish to participate in the discussion. AfD hero (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have been watching and will get around to commenting soon. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation terminology compromise
After much discussion Jakew and I have ironed out a compromise which we believe will satisfy the competing demands and interpretations of policy which have been offered in the discussion on terminology. We would welcome your input on this compromise. Vietminh (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have commented (rather negatively, I'm afraid) at Talk:Female genital mutilation, and I will notice further discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, your comments are appreciated. This compromise does not represent any change of view on how I feel about the term FGM, I am just trying to deal with things as they are. Also, I agree with most of the comments you made following my posting of the compromise, and I am unsure of where to go from here. Note also that my quoting of the pitfall was not directed at you. Vietminh (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any mystery about the future: there will always be at least one editor who continues to raise objections when FGM is described as FGM, and other editors will have to stop trying to get everyone to agree on all points. On the other hand, we will have to watch for anyone who goes too far by attempting to inject commentary (with cherry picked quotes or some other technique) that editorialize about how horrible FGM is (it is horrible of course, but an encyclopedic article should not attempt to explain that to readers). We need to remain very patient and focus on content, and resist the temptation to be dragged into never ending discussion related to settled issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya I certainly did get dragged into that, and you`re right, unanimity is unrealistic given this topic. You`re very observant on the cherry picking of quotes, possibly my strongest disagreement with Jakew was that he persisted in doing that despite me calling it out on him. Its very frustrating to locate a source that specifically favours the use of FGM and to have a sentence from that source quoted out of context to somehow indicate the opposite position that the article espouses. I attempted this compromise because I didn`t want the situation we`re in to persist, but I guess as you say it is for the most part unavoidable. I just didn`t want to be “that guy” who couldn`t compromise. Vietminh (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

To let you know...
I understand why you would undo my edit to WP:What Wikipedia is Not, and I don't mind. Just that its better to list those there because I didn't create those. I actually went to them to see if they did redirect to it, and lo and behold, they did. Again, I didn't create those, I just listed them. Have a good day! :D LikeLakers2 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand that there are lots of redirects to many of the various procedural pages, and only some of them are listed as shortcuts on each page because it is too confusing to have more than a very small number for people to choose from. Johnuniq (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem! I'm always happy and willing to help! (Even with no reward! Yep, I'm that helpful. :P ) LikeLakers2 (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing
I'd like to hear what you think at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik. causa sui (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I might get around to commenting but for now I will just say that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think that freedom means that using an image provided by a mass murderer that was intended to glorify himself is helpful to the encyclopedia, and those that don't. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If a user passes himself off as an Admin. like this, who do you report it to?
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 4twenty42o (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

The "three-reverts" were of my own material, at the time, I believe.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to leave this matter for a few days as it has been presented in a significant number of different venues and it should be allowed to calm down. However, no one passed themselves off as an admin: it is standard that editors leave warnings, it happens all the time. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. I am not normally into Wikidrama but concerning the above user I just made this. In its current form it is not complete and I am having second thoughts, thinking of letting it lapse without completely filling it in. It would need more than one concerned person who has tried to talk with this user to comment. So if you are also interested in this case, I would go through the effort of filling this in more completely and not letting it lapse. What do you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been away for a couple of days. I'm now watching the RfC/U and will think about what I might do. On the one hand, there is no reason you should have to tolerate the inappropriate waffle from this user, yet Wikipedia's procedures are so tolerant of nonsense that I'm not sure throwing good time after bad would be worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JohnLloydScharf
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at    :Requests for comment/JohnLloydScharf. -- Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback :->
Thank you for your feedback

I now realise that I did not follow the established etiquette. My apologies for not opening an entry in the talk section of the Tony Abbott page.

I have included the following links for your future reference.

NPOV/FAQ Section Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
 * "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted."

Your actions may upset other users in the future. I personally have no issues as I have not followed established processes. Kindest regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.41.183 (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful response (which concerns Tony Abbott and a message I left at your talk page). I have slightly refactored (changed) your above message for clarity (it takes a while to get used to wikitext; you might like to review WP:TP to see about signing messages with four tildes).
 * I infer that your message from the NPOV/FAQ is to suggest that the two editors who reverted your change should have instead removed the text to the talk page. It takes quite a while to see how things work in practice, but that advice is not applicable to the sort of edit we are discussing. It does not apply because this report is just trivia that opponents want to exploit to damage their target, and Wikipedia is not available for that. In a WP:BLP (biography of a living person), all normal rules are enforced vigorously, and negative material is deleted from the article and the talk page unless it is appropriate and sourced. The case we are discussing has arisen many times with politicians in many countries. Over thirty years ago, when the politician was aged 20, the politician was alleged to have groped a woman, and a charge was dismissed (according to your text; I have no knowledge of the case). Presumably that will be news now because some political opponents have dug it up (I assume), but it is trivia as far as an article here is concerned. Come back when something has actually happened (the politician has resigned due to the incident, or at least a legal investigation into the matter is launched, or similar). An example of that is another article of a politician that I watch, where in exactly the same way I have reverted undue mud added to the article in the past. However, more serious mud has recently arisen, and the politician has resigned, and the material which had been removed several times in the past is now present (see David Wu—scrub my previous statement; I haven't looked for a while, and it appears the old and rather trivial dirt, which was more serious than the case we are discussing, has again been removed). Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

meatpuppet accusation
Perhaps at the least you can have a laugh out loud diff - regards - Off2riorob (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me. I am honored to be thought of as your meatpuppet! I've been away for a bit, so missed this. ANI archive is here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Benigno Aquino, Jr.
Hello John. I've left a link at Talk:Benigno Aquino, Jr to an edit today which illustrates what I was trying to describe to you a couple of weeks ago. This is part of the material Elchori01 has been persistently deleting from the lead of that article. It is well sourced content that other editors added quite some time ago, it is important and relevant material which belongs in the lead, and he has simply decided to delete it.  Rubywine. talk 12:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left my opinion at the article talk. I'm watching and will notice any developments (although I'm busy and may fail to notice something on my watchlist, so by all means remind me if wanted). Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Toobin
Dear Johnuniq:

I hope that I am sending you this message correctly, and I apologize if I am not. I looked around at different posts on other living people and this word "controversy" seems to be used even more prominently for other, even for issues that are much less clear cut than for Toobin. For example, here is one post that I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Ayres I looked at the history of the posts on Lott and there were a lot of people who tried to correct the much stronger and more controversial attacks there, but the term controversy and other debatable issues kept being put back up. In Toobin's case there seems to be no debate at all that he is the father, that he didn't pay child support, etc.. But in this other case, there were huge debates in the "view history" section where people are citing information that disputes many of the hostile claims against Lott (especially regarding sections 3.3 and 3.5). Yet, these comments on Lott's page are allowed to stand and evidence that contradicts the hostile claims in these two sections against him are consistently removed. There seems to be no debate about the fact that Ayres did these things so is it OK that the "controversy" is used here or would it be better to use "plagiarism."

Could you explain to me why these standards seem to apply to some public figures but not others? Is it your job to go around and fix these posts when they are not meeting the WP:BLPN standards? I am not sure that I want to wade into the long exchanges over the Lott entries, but possibly someone such as you with more experience might want to correct the posts there. It might be much less egregious, but you might want to also correct the posting involving Ayres. I have seen a couple other posts for other people, and if I can remember where I saw them, I will list those out for you also.

I am just trying to learn how these things work. Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Roberts1963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts1963 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first example above has a controversy section which lists several quite significant issues involving multiple people. The second mentions a single issue, but in that case "controversy" is a kindness to the subject because the alternative would be something "plagiarism". In both cases, I assume that if I were to read the sources I would find that reliable sources regard the matters as controversial and of significance.


 * For Jeffrey Toobin, the text in the (currently removed) "Personal life/Controversy" section can be seen in the version at 00:51, 3 September 2011. That text asserts that the subject had an affair while married, and fathered a child. That is a personal issue which is typical of the mud that can be found in the lives of many people, and the other facts mentioned are simply consequences of the embarrassment. In the examples above, the issues were not merely personal problems, but involved interactions with the subject's work, and with other people (i.e. they can be seen as being significant). Of course, anyone opposed to Toobin would regard the affair as being "significant", but does a reliable source explain what the significance is? Or, is it merely dirt which can be used to discredit the subject? An encyclopedic article should not record comments like "less-than-gallant behavior"—such day-to-day comments are highly appropriate when written under a byline in news commentary, but are not appropriate in a WP:BLP.


 * I should mention that in general an argument along the lines of "X is in that article, so it is ok for it to be in this article" are ignored at Wikipedia. While I understand the point you are raising, if this gets to the next level (say WP:BLPN), arguments like that will be ignored (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). I think you should contemplate what I wrote at your talk about how articles would look if any editor could add every negative factoid and comment they could find. The next step would be to see if any reliable source covers the issue in more than a "gossip story of the day" fashion (i.e. does it have significance?), and try formulating some text which a reader might regard as being encyclopedic, rather than a recitation of every negative issue that could be found. Please post any proposal at the talk page of the article as that is the appropriate place for a discussion of this nature. You might like to review WP:TP for talk page procedures, including signing comments. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Johnuniq, but unfortunately this argument seems arbitrary. Many people may pretend not to be married, have a child out of wedlock while still married to another person, refuse to pay child support, etc.. Still I am sure that the other points regarding plagiarism or using a pseudonym (I assume that Johnuniq isn't your real name) can be debated over how bad they are compared to what Toobin did, but that debate seems arbitrary to me. Is plagiarism worse? I don't know, though you might be correct about that one. You argue that Toobin shouldn't be chastised to had because he might have refused to pay child support even after the DNA tests were done because of the embarrassment factor. Possibly Ayres has some similar defense. Is using a pseudonym (and it is disputed if you read the responses back and forth)? Probably not even if it is true. I will make you a deal. If you remove the "controversy" label for the Lott piece, I will not try to put it up again for Toobin. Thanks.

I have cut out the NY Daily News statement: "less-than-gallant behavior." For the moment I have also removed the "controversy" label. That said, case that go repeatedly to court tell us something about the integrity of the man. I can agree that refusing to give a DNA test could be related to embarrassment and so could lying about being married, but repeatedly fighting over a long period of time not to give child support when it is clear that you are the father is not the same. This guy refused to pay child support even after the court ordered him to do so. There are also the ethical issues involved. Those reflect directly on his job and the information that he provides to others. Given that he makes comments on issues that are very closely related to things that he has done in the past, Wikipedia serves as a way to make sure that people know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts1963 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, you should put in a blog, and not attempt to use Wikipedia for observations on ethical issues. Reading my above message shows a suggestion to post further comments at the article talk page, and to learn how to sign messages. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you feel that it is appropriate to list the actual number of children that he has or why only mention the mother of two of his children or why only the time frame for one relationship and not the other? Roberts1963 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will make one more explanation here, but for anything related to the article in the future, please use the article talk page. Your comment above includes:
 * ... refused to pay child support ... ethical issues involved ... reflect directly on his job ... Wikipedia serves as a way to make sure that people know about it.
 * An editor with thoughts like those should not be editing a BLP article. Apart from that, I have no opinion on exactly what the article should say (I am not a supporter or opponent of the subject). I am confident that the editors who were alerted by the BLPN report are also editing in a neutral fashion, and trying to understand their approach would be of great assistance. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard case involving Jespah
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban of Jespah". Thank you.  Ol Yeller Talktome 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I commented there. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hoyle's fallacy and Watchmaker analogy and Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
Thanks for the feedback and info John, I've tried to fix my edits as you've suggested.Jadon (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good! Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Best Practice page
Hello Johnuniq,

Earlier you deleted the changes I made to the Best Practice page and you said I violated copyright rules. I am working on this page as part of a class project that is due in a few hours and my group and I are wondering what we violated. The content comes from a government website that is designed for their information to be put out and we made the disclaimer that we were quoting from this site. Also, we quoted ideas from a book and cited that source as well and some original content we created was deleted also. I do not understand why our page was deleted and we would like to be able to put the page up so our professor can see it.

Best, Divinia A. (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be difficult, but copyvios (copyright violations) are taken very seriously at Wikipedia. There are only very rare occasions when it is acceptable to copy text from some source into Wikipedia. There are two issues: (1) Legal—copyvios are not permitted. (2) Ethical—using text from another source, whether attributed or not, can (depending on how its done) be a dubious practice. Plagiarism is strongly discouraged, and it is best to think of it as "not permitted". Unfortunately, I am not aware of any policy pages which explain the situation in any digestible form, but WP:COPYOTHERS (which is on the page I linked to at your talk page) covers the issue.
 * Here is the problem:
 * (version of Best practice at 06:24, 22 September 2011).
 * Original source.
 * There is a lot of text duplicated in the article from the source, and such copied material is not permitted at any page on Wikipedia. An article needs to be encyclopedic and world-wide in nature, and it is unlikely (although I did not study the text) that a large amount of copied text would be suitable in an article here anyway. Any text in an article (other than short quotes—that is, attributed text in quotation marks) needs to be written in the words of an editor here. The words and the organization of the text need to be clearly different from the source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► consulate ─╢ 07:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

COI edit warning
I was the other person removing TreasuryTag's COI template warning and I received his rebuke! I was pleased to see you involved as well since I prefer 1RR for myself. I am quite happy to join in again on this if it helps. Thincat (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks—what an absurd situation! I like your reply ("I shall cherish your comment here as if it were a barnstar"). It seems the dust has settled for now, but if the COI notice is replaced I will ask for opinions at ANI as, like you, I am not going to edit war over a misunderstanding like that. I would hate to make my first ever report at ANI over such a trivial issue, but I will if needed.
 * To remind myself later: A new editor made to an article, with an edit summary revealing the identity of the editor. Another editor placed uw-coi at the new editor's talk page, and three editors removed it per WP:BITE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth adding a note of Newyorkbrad's opinion, particularly here, which TT had responded to before he reverted you. Thincat (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

More specific RfC on astrology
Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts to balance the nonsense at Astrology. I have commented at Talk:Astrology. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting other editors' talk page posts
John, given your experience on Wikipedia I can't believe I'm saying this, but this isn't appropriate. Per WP:TALKO: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Please restore my comment immediately. Jakew (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are reasonable exceptions. What happened was that I saw the inappropriate edits (unsourced edit war) and prepared a "welcome + comment" for the new user to explain the situation. Then I got an edit conflict because you had posted an edit war warning. Such a warning is fine, but a bit premature for a new user, so I thought it adequate to replace the warning with my message which covers the relevant points (and I referred to WP:BITE in the edit summary of ). Feel free to insert your warning if you like, but it seems unnecessary to me given the text that I posted. As a matter of interest, I was recently involved in a "discussion" with an editor who insisted on posting a pointy warning at a new user's talk page (referred to at above), and I stated I would take the matter to ANI if the warning was reinstated. That was because of certain other factors that do not apply here, and I would just agree to disagree if you were to reinstate your warning (i.e. I would do nothing more). I have a comment regarding the text added by the new user which I intend adding to Talk:Circumcision, but I've been called away for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, there are two separate issues here:
 * The first point is whether a 3RR warning is appropriate/ideal for a new user. My feeling comes down to this: this user is following a pattern of behaviour that I've seen many times previously, and which usually results in a 3RR report sooner rather than later.  (I could well be wrong, but I'd prefer to prepare for that eventuality.)  To make such a report it's necessary to have warned the user first.  There is universal agreement that the uw-3rr template constitutes a warning; however, there is sometimes room for disagreement regarding custom messages.  For that reason I prefer templates.  I take your point that it can seem a bit BITEy, and I fully accept that there's room for disagreement here.
 * The second point is that you didn't ask my permission before deleting one of my posts. If you had notified me I would have regarded it as an appropriate gesture, but to delete my (or anyone else's posts) without doing either is completely unacceptable.  What if I hadn't watchlisted that page, and I had later acted on the assumption that my message was still there?  Minor reformatting is one thing, but wholesale deletion of someone else's comments is a really serious action.  I've only ever done it once or twice, always involving personal attacks, and even then with caution.  (You may remember that I tried to obtain permission from Santiago84 to do so, and that was in the presence of a fairly serious personal attack.  That may have been taking caution too far, perhaps.)  Would you at least be willing to agree to notify such users if you do it in future? Jakew (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two complicating issues. The first is that you and I have disagreed in the past, so it was rather inflammatory of me to remove your post—sorry about that, and it's certainly not something I would readily do. However, the second issue is that I really do subscribe to BITE, and whereas it's quite possible that the new user will turn out to be like the many SPAs who appear at that article, I thought that their edit was sufficiently reasonable that BITE should be observed. As it happens, you are currently active and able to talk, but it seemed best to just replace the standard warning with text which was essentially equivalent (my text clearly explained that a block would occur if WP:3RR were breached, in fact I think my text is rather more understandable to a new user than the template, although I understand what you say about the need for standard warnings). If I posted to seek your agreement, and waited for your reply, my desire to avoid BITE may well have been subverted because the user may have seen the bare warning before my text could be posted. I regret that most of my time at Wikipedia is spent chasing bad edits, and I have seen similar edits to mine (i.e. replacing templated warnings for a new user) on several occasions (sorry, can't think of any examples atm apart from the case mentioned above, which was rather exceptional). I see what you mean about notify, and yes I agree that it would be desirable to notify an editor when replacing their warning. I won't make an undertaking in the general terms you suggest (see the case above for an example where observing niceties would not really be helpful), but I certainly agree that if I ever again encounter this unusual situation involving you, that I will at least notify you within a short time. I do understand that removing someone's comment is highly unusual. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Change at what wikipedia is not/thanks for your careful eye
Hi Johnuniq,

Grapplequip here. You reverted my edit at WP:PLOT. Now that I've reread the section, I realize you were entirely correct in doing so, and I should clearly have read the section a wee bit more closely (whoops!) before making that edit. To explain myself, I misread that sentence as an admonition not to include an overlong summary in an article about a book, (thus "should contain no more than a recap") instead of as an instruction to include more than just a summary of the work. With this in mind, I got the wacky idea in my head that the original writer must have accidentally left out the word "no". To make matters worse, I forgot to include an edit summary! Anyway, thanks for the correction. I think I'll go ahead and add a post-facto edit summary explanation of my misdeed!--Grapplequip (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. As it happens, when I was looking at your change, I initially agreed with you (i.e. I misparsed the text). It was only after thinking hang on, that text has been there a long time that I looked again. I wouldn't bother with any post-facto explanations, but thank you for your comment here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right about the post-facto thing. However, since you mention that you also misread the sentence, now I wonder whether or not the sentence does have something wrong with it.  Could it be clearer?  Perhaps we should do something about it.--Grapplequip (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Zythe
Hi Johnuniq,

No personal attack is being made against Zythe. I went through all the files looking to see where to report him, and everything I found led me to that page. Wikipedia is confusing when trying to report a user for personal attacks, edit wars, etc. Zythe has been made personal attacks against people in the past. He also acts as if he owns pages, and reverts all edits he doesn't approve of, and participates in edit wars. Wikipedia is not clear on how to go about reporting someone. I've been trying to work it out for months, and it led me to led me to that page. Heck, I don't even know how to check if he has any sock puppets. Those pages are confusing too. --Clarrisani (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep the important discussion in one place, I have copied your message to User talk:Clarrisani and replied there. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied on my Talk page. --Clarrisani (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Media Organization
Hey John, I se that Tom's link shows us that the ABC article mentions our collective article, and that this probably qualifies for some mention at the top of the talk page is it, where a prior mention in the news is listed. I tried to figure out how to add the latest news blip on the page to that, but couldn't figure it out. As you're the technical whiz around here, I thought of you. Is this link and details supposed to be added to the page? Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that was scary. For posterity, these were my two edits: and . Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, pal. You're a real frontline trooper, as my WW1-combat-surving relatives used to say. For posterity, I even accepted the challenge at ABC on the talk page, in the politest of comic language, but it was immediately deleted for the presence of what someone must have took to be insidious Japanese characters, since my learned interlocutor got my name wrong twice, and I corrected his orthographical misprisions. Either that, or because I asked my virtual host to pony up the ready for an insurance policy to cover me against litigation costs, and accommodation where I could avoid contact with what is called food over there, and be assured of European fare! We live in a weird world.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Read and learn
I’m not updating certain publication information, I’m updating my own publications in the galling discussion page. It is not an appropriate procedure to make revisions and corrections of my own discussion messages, see WP:TP.

If you would like to discuss this, or have any questions, please contact the Wikipedia officials and there should be no need to notify me.

It’s scary that people like you can hide behind aliases and anonymity and abuse legislation created by true Wikipedians with the aim to make free and correct knowledge excisable and easy to obtain. I always write my full name and stand for what I write, I don’t use foul language or writhingly abuse other people. Is that really impossible for the kind of people you are?

You only use Wikipedia rules to satisfy your lack of self a steam by battering me with false claims, this you do together with a group of people like your self. Clearly you all have problems with self indulgence, for what other reason do you want to make correct and useful knowledge inaccessible? You newer even answer when I prove you wrong.

And finally you try to make med believe Wikipedia have rules that takes control over “MY OWN OLD DISCUSSION MESSAGES”. I newer gave Wikipedia ownership over my discussions and I can not believe it’s legally or even practically possible.

If it wasn’t important, this would be funny. (Hover it’s clearly more important to you than to me =) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.233.10 (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that, particularly on the Internet, it is common to encounter contrarians who will object and oppose any venture, no matter how worthwhile. Those same people do operate at Wikipedia, but most of the regulars here are not like that—I explained that the best (and correct) procedure would be to leave any personal notes at your user page, and I am not your opponent, and in fact would be very willing to help with any of Wikipedia's procedures. Please ask if there is a problem. This relates to Talk:Galling where an editor who specializes in that subject has repeatedly used the talk page in ways not envisaged by WP:TPG. I recently left messages at User talk:Haraldwallin and User talk:83.227.233.10 (same person). Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thank you for your note Johnuniq. Your are quite right I have pushed beyond the limits, at least in part due to the baiting in the edit summaries. I should no better andI will take your advice. I am glad that you eyes are also on the article. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking after Audrey Hepburn! Reverting misguided IPs is about all I have energy for lately. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is mood :-) What mood? Mood Indigo - In the Mood (I like Bette Midler's rendition) - Moody Blues (another longtime fave) - Oh well thanks for taking the time to respond to the IPs rant. Its odd that they keep harping on the US thing since they are editing from Washington state. Oh well such are the mysteries of WikiP editing. Have a spoooooktacular Halloween. MarnetteD | Talk 02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And, such are the irritations facing the Wikipedia editor! I don't think I know Mood Indigo, but I do know The Moody Blues! Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I had heard Nat King Cole sing Mood Indigo on some show in the 1960's and it had stuck with me. The interesting thing is that the song has a connection to the Moody B's as you will see if you scroll down a few lines here . College would have been much less fun without the Moody's music! MarnetteD | Talk 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I share the enthusiasm for Jimmy Durante. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

External links issue
Hello,

Can you please tell me why you deleted my edit to this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing? I added the external link of a websire which contains ressearch articles for crowdsourcing and also a big catalog of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding projects.

Thank you in advance for your clarifications.

Best regards, Helen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen.Ershova (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that your introduction has been bumpy, but the problem is that there are literally hundreds of websites with at least some good content for most major topics, and there are many enthusiasts who want to let people know about a particular website. The result is that we often see new editors who spend most of their time promoting some external links—as a result the community takes a rather hard approach whereby each link needs to be justified in terms of the WP:EL guideline because what is needed are editors who focus on improving articles in order to build the encyclopedia. When a link has been removed, and someone believes it is useful, the proper procedure is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article (at Talk:Crowdsourcing click "new section" at the top, enter a heading like "Link to crowdsourcing.org", and enter a brief reason how the link satisfies WP:EL and why it would assist readers of Crowdsourcing; include the link in the body of the comment; finish with a signature by adding a space then four tilde characters to the last line of the comment; see WP:TP). In principle, other editors would join that discussion by adding comments, and a consensus would decide whether or not the link should be added. In practice, there may not be many people who want to engage with the discussion so there may be few or no responses. After a couple of days where no one has objected, add the link to the article, putting something like "add link per talk" in the edit summary. For your information, contested cases are discussed at WP:ELN but that is not suitable for the minor issue that currently exists. If you have any questions, please ask here (or at WP:HELPDESK), but any discussion about the link should be at the article talk page (I'm not suggesting you should have known that—Wikipedia is a mysterious place and it takes quite a while to become used to the customs). Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your prompt answer and for your explanations, and sorry for being a little clumsy as this is my first experience in editing something here. I totally agree with your ideas about great veriety of websites with good content and about people wanting to add a particular website because they think that it is the most suitable one. I am really interested in the area of crowdsourcing and am trying to study it right now. So far I've found this interesting website, which I think will be very useful for the researches of this topic. Later when I will be really good at this topic and find some useful content, I am planning to edit this article more. Considering your comment I think it would be more appropriate to put this link among the Crowdsourcing projects, as this site can help people finding the most suitable project for crowdsourcing or crowdfunding and can guide them how to achieve success in this area. Additionally, as you suggested, I will open a discussion on the article talk page, and if noone objects the link will be located among the projects. Thank you very much for your guidelines. It is very useful for such a newbie as I am. Best regards, Helen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen.Ershova (talk • contribs) 12:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and happy editing. As I was rather hinting before, an editor who improves a couple of articles will encounter less resistance than an editor who merely adds external links. While talk pages are rather a minor issue, it is not hard to learn the basics. I refactored (changed) your above comment to make it one physical line (generally a comment is not like an email with "Regards" and a name added, and particularly not on separate lines), and I inserted two colons at the start so it indented twice (this comment I am writing has three colons at its start). I will finish by adding a space then four tilde characters at the end of this line. See WP:TP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Violence Policy Center
Thank you for the help on the wikipedia page Violence Policy Center I hope it is up to par now. Aslscsu1990 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad my very minor help was useful, and thanks for your message. I moved your message to here because editors expect that new comments are at the bottom: Click "new section" at the top to add a new topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)