User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 9

Deleted question
Why you silently delete my question on page Talk:Mutation? It's not an article its the talk page. The right place to ask questions about article. Right? 91.77.237.158 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question
I have no intention of engaging in any edit war and I apologise if you feel my previous action was in some way discourteous.

I have commented on the main talk page for the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

I should be obliged by your early response.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Issues about an article should be discussed at its talk page: Talk:Shakespeare authorship question (I do not need a notification). The topic is a well known WP:FRINGE issue that is under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, see WP:ARBSAQ. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My name is Laurence Beck and I add to this passage to quote the contributors opening line; "I have no intention of engaging in any edit war and I apologise if you feel my previous action was in some way discourteous." What a wonderful courtesy to read. I myself have had the voluptuous force of some snarling little nobody informing me in the servitude of being a lackey to world Wikipedia information telling me that I have engaged in war. There is one person and one person only who on behalf of Wikipedia conceived of that rudeness for Wikipedia's editors to use. It is is so courteously responded to above. This is a declaration of defiance to that one person and that one person only. If you suggest war, boy, suggest war crimes ! ( I think I was courteous enough in my previous response. And I can see how the particular Wikipedia phraseology merits some reconsideration of challenge.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it is common to issue edit war notifications to editors under circumstances like those in this history. If the matter had been reported at WP:AN3 it is likely that a block would have occurred, so whereas the notice I left was ugly, it was ultimately a favor. Because repeatedly reinserting edits is an easy click, often people don't realize that such reinsertions lead to repercussions. I actually went to a bit of trouble at User talk:Laurencebeck to explain the situation, but I can understand that the explanation might not have been welcome.
 * By the way, my response to Wightknightuk above is brusque, but it is often better to use a few words to tell people directly what is on your mind. I do not remember that exchange from May, but I see that the editor has now been indefinitely blocked (nothing to do with me), so I assume there was a significant amount of trouble at the time. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

- As for courtesy, thank you for yours ! . . I think there might be a thing such as "an information battle." . . But the phrase "an edit war" has been imposed upon you, I think. ty - LB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice
Thanks for your advice.

However, I will like to inquire if there exist a page section on Wikipedia where such configurations can be added?

I wish I could add such configurations to help readers have a practical understanding of what they're studying. I just wanted to make the wiki a one-stop-place all the details necessary in understanding certain networking topics.

Well, that's what I think. In case it doesn't fit or it should not exist, I will take it off. But since encyclopedic contents should be verifiable and practical, i thought of doing something like that.

On networking topics like, OSPF, EIGRP, RIP and other routing protocols do not have their basic configuration settings explained. I don't intend to make the explanations a 100% tutorial teaching page. However, some basics that will give the reader a fair idea of what is being discussed.

Thanks for your interest. Let me know of anything else.

Best regards --Nkansahrexford (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's difficult, sorry. I have responded at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
I am fucking useless when it comes to figuring out Wikipedia's instructions about technical matters. Would you be so kind as to add another page to the archive of Talk:The Tempest? Much appreciated. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, glad to be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks a lot for your kind welcome. I'm a long-time consumer of the wiki, and can't help putting my oar in occasionally. Hope it goes to helping the real, excellent work users like yourself do. Red banksy (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I haven't been much editing lately but monitor a few articles and noticeboards. If you ever want my comments on an issue, please ask. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY
Hardly applies to an old school guy like Willy. And he is called a troll at least one of those sources (forget which, lulz). Anyhoo please don't reply to me here, take it to article talk page if ya wanna revert.

cheers,

Egg  Centri  c  00:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This refers to Troll (Internet) where removed a claim added to the article that a certain vandal was a "troll"—the claim was not supported by the sources. This note is for my interest, and of course I will join a discussion at the article talk page if warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies..
 * You're absolutely correct, they don't mention anything about trolling. I really thought they did - but I can't deny reality!  Egg   Centri  c  00:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your message. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a quick note to thank you for all your help and support over the last few of weeks with the various Transit of Venus articles. It was a long, hard slog but the traffic stats for the articles made it all seem worth while. Richerman ''  (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You did all the work! I'm sorry I didn't get involved earlier—congratulations to you for the great result. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Retired
Hi, you should probably remind User:Nishidani that if he's returned to Wikipedia as an active editor he needs to remove the Template:Retired from his Talk page that indicates he's no longer active. I'd do so myself but don't have the time to get involved in the semantic and philosophical discussions that inevitably will ensue, so I apologize in advance for asking you to take care of this instead of doing so myself.—Biosketch (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! I do not know, but I suspect the "retired" tag is an expression of disagreement with some of the more absurd features of Wikipedia (such as endless POV warring from people who are quite clever with rules but less so with accurate content). Perhaps it indicates his heart is not really in his editing? I agree it should be removed or replaced with semi-retired, but I'm not sure it's worth pursuing the matter. I'll think about it, and would willingly raise it with Nishidani if I thought, on balance, that it would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. Uh, alzheimers strikes again. It should be either 'retarded' or 'semi-retarded'. Will do. Biosketch. It is true, Johnuniq is my mentor in the best Odyssean sense, but really I don't take it badly if chaps just tell me directly to pull my finger out on my page. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Maestro! Help
Is there any way one can put apicals into letter, so that they turn up that way on page. There is an Egyptian verb 'ș3s where that '3'(slightly italicized) is actually a phonetic symbol. I can't see any relevant help for this on the Egyptian Language page, since mojibake has bedevilled things. Sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was cheeky enough to do some copy editing at Donald B. Redford, but apicals are way above my reach. However, if you can provide a little info on where this verb would be used (and, without going to any trouble, is there a website where the word can be seen?), I would be happy to look at it because I can't say no when encountering interesting things. One place to ask (I would do this if I had a bit more info, and I couldn't see it in your contribs) would be at WP:VPT. Another would be to track down someone who has done this sort of thing before. If the word were central to some topic, rendering it correctly would be warranted, but if it's just a mention, the result might not be worthwhile if the solution involves using a specific font or feature that most readers will not have installed (that is, they would get a form of your mojibake—thanks for another interesting word!). Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * what's that line from Intimidations of Immorality by Woidswoif? I seem to blunder through edits trailing crowds of gory errors.
 * Dunno about websites, but you'll get a fair crack at the notion if you throw a shufti at the Aleph article, this section. It's the double 'aleph' written with the vulture sign, you see, represented by a slightly tilted 3 at Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian twice at this section and further below. here, first symbol.
 * The article I thought of using it was at Shasu, where there is a request for its pronunciation, which is conjectured to be shaswe). The article I see does use the '3' symbol' but it should be an apical, as would be the final 'e' of shaswe. I suppose this looks like a bit of fananny-whacken, and perhaps it's not worth straining the boffin bean, since as appears today, while looking round, wiki generally ignores it or just uses the '3'. It's a pity though that apicals can't be used in here. One loses a lot of neat distinctions. Yor 'umble soivent.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am thinking about the issue, but meanwhile am dumping some thoughts. Re Shasu, you may like to review these two edits from May 2011: and . The removed text did look like it should be removed, but since it involves Redford I thought I would mention it (I was looking at diffs wondering who put the "3" in "š3sw" in the lead). The edits since then have partially restored the text (search for "Redford" and "Dever" in the current article to see the claims). I see that Special:Search/š3sw finds Shasu and nothing else, so there might only be one article where this word needs fixing. That is both an argument for ignoring the problem as inconsequential, and for fixing it because correctness is good and a kludge is needed in only one place. If I had a sample of the word correctly rendered, I could trace it into a png or even svg image, and that could be used in the article (as is done with File:Egyptian 3 symbol.png). Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While exploring I encountered an amazing feature (see Help:WikiHiero syntax): the wikitext " " renders as . I am just recording that for my interest. Apart from WP:VPT, I'm thinking WT:WikiProject Writing systems might have someone who knows what is possible, but I'm getting a feeling that making an image of the word might be required. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all fascinating, but I got a guilt complex reflecting on how much of your ntime I wasted with the question, and paid off the guilt-debt as the German says, by trying to improve that article, but calculating I think it took me less time than what my question wasted of yours. In any case, it looks far too complicated to get this into wiki. The efficient solution would be to allow some apical writing template or thingamejig into the wiki markup box, and apply it to a 3 orthographically tilting to the right. Thanks a million, but don't worry it, otherwise I'll call into the Franciscan monastery behind me and ask some pals there if they have a spare whip so I can flagellate myself for the sin of pedantic harassment of a fellow wikipedia:) Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not worry on my account—this sort of thing is what I find enchanting about Wikipedia because it is causing me to explore what for me is unchartered territory—a virtual holiday. Applying "superscript" gives: "the Egyptian word šꜣsw (or šsꜣw if preferred)" and there is possibly some dirty html trick that could be used so at least some browsers put the superscript more over the required character. I guess I will leave it for now as I suspect that an image is the only good solution. Johnuniq (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fanks, guv. Examining the tricks you use above I see the Egg of Columbus that was staring me in the face. Š3sw is virtually a spitting image of how Redford prints it (p.271). The pity is that that '3' apically located can't be made just a smidgeon, a wee tad smaller, and that wikipedia has its conventions, of which this ain't one, so I'd be revoited per WP:ORthographical or awfulgrafical.. Well, now that we've nagged that bone to death, I'll check around to fine another bone to test my graveyard chompers on. Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easy to adjust font size, what I am unclear about is adjusting the position, although I suspect that some ugly html would manage that. Following example uses a superscript three ("3") at 80% font size Š3sw and similar fiddling could be done with the Unicode character (although all browsers should handle the three, but some might not show the Unicode character?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, if the character were wanted in several places I could make a template to easily insert the required wikitext, as I did for rn. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Š3sw. Effme if that ain't clever. That's just what the doctor ordered. Don't think one need 'frenetise the insignificant', to adopt a wonderful phrase from an opprobrious French book, more than that. D'ya think, policy wise, I could dump that on the Shasu page, and just quietly wander off without being hauled to AE for some infraction?Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've fixed Shasu—it looks a bit strange to my pagan eyes but no doubt you will dodge any incoming slings and arrows. Some wikignome is going to stick a fat CITATION NEEDED somewhere in the lead, but there are lots of worse cases so I think we can move to the celebration phase. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority Control Integration
Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Wikipedia and Authority Control, and have just recently made a Village Pump Proposal to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks, Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I have responded and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your comments on the proposal. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any comments gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm watching and will comment if it seems warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rape_culture. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have commented and am watching so do not need further notifications. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Scottywong -Scottywong | spout _ 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Query
Is it possible to search a particular term in a person's contribution, for example, "yogesh" in user:Sitush's contribution.? There have been many instances of him having heckled me and those of his discussing me unfavourably with other editors, like the one I mentioned in the ANI. Thanks in advance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All I'm doing is searching the contributions as listed in the normal manner (you can get them 5000 at a time by editing the URL to change the limit to 5000). I added the results here, however, the search is not really a useful way of evaluating anything because those involved are not using blatantly bad edit summaries. I did not include user talk pages so you would have to search for them if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks. Did you do it the hard way, using "Find" to search for yogesh in the page, with 5000 contributions, and then copied it in another file to create a list? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I manually copied each list of 5000 contribs, appending them to a single file (fairly tedious). From there, I have tools that make it reasonably easy to list each line containing wanted text, or to change each line in a similar way. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Boy, you'll regret you ever read the SAQ page!
In the citational template of cite book/last=/first=/authorlink etc., what happens when as with John Roy Carlson you have no authorlink to that name, because it is a pseudonym for Arthur Derounian, for whom there is a wiki bio?

If I put |last =Carlson|first=John Roy|authorlink=| Arthur Derounian etc. my experience on the SAQ page was that the book author comes out as Arthur Derounian, which however is not on the physical book's cover.

The problem arose at Azzam Pasha quotation, but without risking life and limb there, could you tell me here if there is a technical way of getting the author's name John Roy Coulson (pseudonym) but atttributed author linked to his real name Derounian? Thanks in antic.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you try that? I just did a quick test (see next para) and the authorlink seems to work without changing what is visible. Another approach would be to use a redirect (creating it if necessary). On the principle of "least astonishment" (I'm sure you don't need the wikilink which I don't feel like finding), it might be better for an author displayed as Example to link to "Example", even if the latter is a redirect to the real name. In this case, I see that the redirect already exists at John Roy Carlson, so I would be inclined to use the pseudonym as the authorlink.

However, by 1952, many publications, including one published by the Israeli government, had moved its date to 1948, specifically to May 15, 1948, shortly after the outbreak of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. This dummy text has a ref using the redirect as the authorlink.
 * Sample for testing from Azzam Pasha quotation

All that is needed to fix the article is to insert " " in the text " " which is currently doing nothing in the reference (it looks like someone added the entry but forgot to insert "authorlink="). Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * References


 * Thanks a lot, Johnno, you're a rrrrreal fff . .fucken tr. . oo ...ppper, as King George VI said to Lionel Logue when he awarded him a Logie for his logotherapy. I tried to do the edit several times before calling on you, to no effect. It's another Egg of Columbus, or a matter of my own scotoma with regards to computer code, even the simplest.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

deletion & bad faith assumption
Regarding your deletion of my edit, contrary to your assertion, that edit was not done "to suit a desired outcome in an active discussion". It was done because that addition is very much needed in general, a conclusion I have reached over more than a year of (on and off) editing sex-related articles. Please don't assume bad faith.-- Ty rS  03:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is well known (not an assumption) that it is not desirable to edit a policy when one is relying on that policy in a discussion on another page. I have replied at WT:What Wikipedia is not. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, your edit summary stated your assumption about my motives for making the edit. I simply repeat that you were wrong about my motives.-- Ty rS  05:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will have to take your criticism on the chin because I see that you are correct and my edit summary ("please do not tweak the wording on policy pages to suit a desired outcome in an active discussion") was not properly expressed—sorry. I should either have given a routine but uninformative message, or inserted more words to indicate that one should avoid the possibility of being misunderstood by editing a policy page when relying on that policy in an active discussion in an article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that and can see how bad my simultaneous participation in the discussion and making of that edit look, so I understand you interpreting it that way. It was a matter of inadvisable timing rather than nefarious intentions.-- Ty rS  07:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Registered agent
John, I think we're losing the war. I'm taking it off my watchlist and thought I'd let you know, since you're the only other regular who ever seems to drop by. I'm sick of reverting these people. If you want to fix it one more time and then see if you can get someone to protect it long-term, go for it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Errk, I see what you mean. I think that leaving silly stuff like this is a good strategy and I am doing that myself with a few articles I've encountered (I mutter to myself that if that's how the powers-that-be want it, who am I to question their wisdom—what counts is getting new editors!). However, I'll stick with these for a while. Another approach might be to drop in once every month or two and "revert to last good version", however, worrying will lead to burnout. Thanks for the info. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales Talk Page
Yep. Completely off topic - but not the first, not the last, and a little ingenious for the newbies :) EeBee (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your understanding. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Line breaks
Hi. I've noticed that you've reversed my edit on C++, where I introduced line breaks to the article's markup. The line breaks that were added don't have any influence on how the article is presented, which means that there is no visual change to the article. Yet, as the display of diffs is limited to the paragraphs in the markup code which have been altered, these innocuous line breaks significantly reduce the size of any diff of any subsequent change to the article. Hence, not only is the user presented with a concise summary of the changes, which in turn makes it simpler to read, but it also requires less data to be sent by wikipedia's servers. So, it's a win-win for all.

So, what about it? Can we agree to keep the line breaks in the article? Take care. -- Mecanismo | Talk 01:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted because just about all articles have single-line paragraphs. Article issues should be raised on the article talk page, not here. I have copied your above comment to Talk:C++ and will see any replies there. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia essay
FLAT

Found this tonight, you've probably read it before but I found it very relevant to a lot of the discussions which have occurred on the female genital mutilation talk page. Cheers. Vietminh (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but yes, I have seen that before. I seem to wander into corners of Wikipedia where that kind of essay is highly relevant! Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

James Randi
Hi, John. The Devil's Advocate has alerted me and some others about the GA review of James Randi that he has started. Perhaps you should know about it as well. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I'm currently having a bit of trouble doing more than reverting bad stuff, but I'll have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit of an invitation to a slugfest, I'm afraid. :-( Bishonen &#124; talk 10:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC).

WikiScience

 * I guess you noticed that I reverted edits at Earth's orbit by B4C4RD1980 and Phenomenomal and VinneOverwinner. Happy editing, but please stick to improving the encylopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Leap Year
Please elaborate on the reason for your revert to my submission to the Leap year entry. Specifically, I would like to see you support your position that computer science information is not important to the topic--not even as a note at the bottom. I would like you to cite a Wikipedia style guide or other policy to support your assertion. I see no reason that a non-optimal algorithm should not be notated as such. Thousands of novice and expert programmers refer to the leap year entry, and a simple notation regarding the algorithm is out of the question? Please support that position.

Thank you for your feedback.

Kriceslo (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The best approach for this kind of issue is to discuss the matter on the article talk page where other editors will see it. To assist that, I have added Talk:Leap year. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin accountability
I was thinking about your comment on Jimbo's page that seemed to imply that you think anyone an admin has ever blocked is not a reliable witness to the admins overall behaviour. This would seem to suggest that all an admin would have to do to silence their detractors would be to block them, thus rendering their input invalid, or so your logic would seem to suggest ala reductio ad absurdum. Am I missing something here? Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have misinterpreted the editor's "he did once before" comment: perhaps the admin put a warning on the editor's talk as it was two other admins that blocked them, and that was in 2009. Naturally an admin should not make bad blocks, and a wrongfully blocked editor is totally in the clear as far as I am concerned, and they are welcome to comment on the admin (provided they don't pursue it relentlessly over an extended period as that is unhealthy for all concerned—perfect justice is not guaranteed anywhere, including Wikipedia). A correctly blocked editor is also entitled to comment negatively about the admin, but if the community has supported the block, such comments should be minimal as clear cases of admin abuse will be taken up by independent editors once the matter has been pointed out. My point remains that I have seen only one other editor support the campaign against the admin, so it should stop (or be taken to somewhere more formal, such as ANI). Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Jimbo seemed to agree, in general anyway. Why do you suppose said editor is now taking a break from wikipedia? ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure now of what editor we are talking about because the one I had in mind recently added a comment on their talk page. However it may be that they have drastically reduced their editing, and that could be due to a lot of factors. My major concern is that the community has far too much patience with time wasters, and the ensuing slugfests drive away good editors. Ensuring that every admin is always civil and always makes perfect decisions can be attended to after fixing that more significant problem—particularly since the evidence of admin abuse is very unconvincing. Admin abuse does happen, and I bitterly complained a couple of months ago about something really stupid an admin did, and their lack of engagement with the issue was highly irritating, but pursuing the matter would be corrosive and that admin does not foul up repeatedly, and is useful in other ways. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Johnuniq (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are talking about different editors. To clarify: I don't expect perfection either, just a bit of contrition and a more humble approach to serving the community. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be good, however, please bear in mind that people are different. If I went crazy and f-bombed a couple of pages, my contrition would be obvious, but some people are at a different stage of development and contrition is not readily achieved. In the case of the admin you mentioned, there was contrition, although I agree you had to look to find it. As far as I am concerned, that is fine, particularly given the amount of crap that an admin who actively opposes troublemakers cops. I would join any campaign to have time wasters speedily removed because they really are causing good editors to leave. By comparison, a few dubious admin actions are nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not ignoring you
Johnuniq, I just wanted to mention that I'm not ignoring your comment on Talk:Homeopathy about "idea" not being vague. (I did reply about "hypothesis" granting unmerited credibility.) There's been an awful lot of discussion about a single word-choice, and I'm hoping that a consensus will form around another word, like "doctrine" or "tenet", so we can skip yet more detailed discussion and be done with it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no problem. You have done a lot more there than me, and I was just expressing my irritation with the general tendency for people to use Wikipedia to promote some view. I will return to that page and may join in later. Johnuniq (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've put your finger right on the trouble at Homeopathy: people using Wikipedia for advocacy. The edit war of a couple days ago got started by a couple editors who seem to want Wikipedia to advocate against homeopathy. Perhaps that's an over-reaction to past attempts by pro-homeopathy editors to get the article to overemphasize sources that favor the pro-homeopathy position, and perhaps it's an agenda (one editor seems to declare an agenda on his user page pretty brazenly). Anyway, thanks for articulating your concern so precisely. That Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of any kind might provide a common point of agreement, which might lead us away from the combative "don't give the other side an inch!" mentality and back to collaboratively summarizing reliable sources. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but to be fair the skeptics (of which I am one) have had very bad experiences trying to keep articles free from fandom. One problem is that skeptics (who believes reliable scientific sources should be used to comment on matters relating to science, including whether remedy X cures disease Y) have to monitor many articles on widely different topics, while the proponents only need to focus on the topic of their choice where they can devote the full force of their POV on the article and its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello John - I've been working on this article in a genuine NPOV spirit, trying to help build consensus, and explaining the changes I've been planning to the Evidence section in advance on the talk page -- all in line I believe with Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe I've misinterpreted your comments and perceived lack of support? I hope so. Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please understand that my involvement at Talk:Homeopathy has been from a desire to help avoid undue POV being introduced to inflate fringe material. I have not followed the article or the talk page in detail, so my comments may be based on an incomplete understanding of the topic and the history of the discussion. All I was saying is that I did not follow your view and was hoping you would be more specific about your favored text. I did not think that a Google search was a suitable way of determining whether a particular word was a good description, but was not trying to be any more negative than stating my belief about that. Sorry if I caused offense, but none was intended. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. Just for the record (and not for polemic), I still feel that attaching a label not generally found in RS (retrievable via Google/GoogleScholar) would not, in principle, be good. I was also somewhat surprised by your unexplained rejection of the term used in the main body of the article. More seriously, I am sensitive to the risk of being misrepresented as a flag-bearer of any particular POV: I consider myself to be a thoughtful skeptic, in keeping I think with the general WP approach. My work through the Evidence section of this article is motivated by a desire to see the evidence (especially the more abstruse bits about metanalysis etc) set out clearly and correctly, and then preferably summarized for the benefit of the general reader. There are relevant ethical considerations here, and I agree it is important to represent them fairly. I have absolutely no interest in mocking consumers of homeopathy. Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for external links to promote items with no demonstrated significance
I noticed you deleted Monthly events with the explanation that they have no "demonstrated significance." Monthly events, similar to the annual events that you did not delete, add to the culture of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChateauOfADoubt (talk • contribs) 04:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that all your edits have been to Troy, New York, and they have all involved adding text with bare external links to draw the attention of readers away from the article and towards external websites. Consider what Wikipedia would look like if such activities were not resisted. That's why WP:EL requires links that help the article for readers wanting encyclopedic information on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution, then, instead, would be to remove just the links. This is my first day trying to edit anything on wikipedia and I've already found myself googling "delete-happy editors" and finding that this is a phenomenon driving away many well-meaning editors. Forgive my ignorance, I've always found wikipedia as a great place to find such external links, I did not realize they were so frowned upon. It has been supremely frustrating having my entire edits deleted for this reason. Next time I'll make sure my links don't leave the house without being properly dressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChateauOfADoubt (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see from your comments that you are a well-meaning editor, and very competent as well (although you might sign your comments on talk pages by adding a space and then four tildes on the last line of your comment). There is no good solution to the problem, and if you were to spend some time here while monitoring a wide range of articles you would undoubtedly see a lot more merit in what I am saying. That would occur because people use Wikipedia to add external links to feature something of interest to them continuously. I don't like just reverting but there is little alternative because there are not enough hours in a day to convince people that what they want to feature may not be suitable for a worldwide encyclopedia. If I were to visit a city I would consult Wikipedia, but I would also consult Google, and it is the latter which should be telling me about monthly events. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)