User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 5

User: FORE-EVER_TRUE

RE: Do you want to permit some interchange of ideas from me ?

How can Reason and Science be associated correctly with Richard Dawkins flawed logic of Evolution and wrong logic ? --Forever true (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This section should be removed because it is not concerned with improvements to the article. Please see WP:TPG. Also, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and WP:FRINGE makes clear that pseudoscience is not given "equal time" with scientific topics such as evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry please remove me, from the bettering of the article. But the article has, other books comments! And your definition of pseudo Science clearly shows you are not aware of your logic, not thought reasons! So you can include me in others Books comments. I will go to Court over, I must advise you that using of pseudo-Science terminology. Not because of any offense, but because of your inferior logic. You are clearly showing your ignorance, and I am of no Religion, ok. Rather pure logic. Please see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Forever_true/Pure_Logic. And see if you can wrap your mind around the logic. Like Dawkin's Fallacy no.1 and no.2.

In true and correct Science of Pure Logic, the super-natural is associated with superstitious beliefs. Rather we use the definitions of supra-natural or infra-natural. Above the normal or bellow the normal. Did you just come out of your "cage" of no up-bringing, like crawling, and not being able to speak ? Well than you have not read my Book !

If you in your self developed intelligence do not think I belong in Science or wikipedia, then i do not know what you are doing here !

user: Foreever_true

---

I AM ALL EARS HERE if we can agree on some kind of logic. --Forever true (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This concerns a comment I made at Talk:Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. You have only been an editor for two days, and have not yet become accustomed to the procedures used at Wikipedia. I gave you a link to WP:TPG, and I will now try to clarify that you should read and follow the procedures outlined at that page. Wikipedia is not a forum where we exchange ideas, other than ideas based on policy and concerned with improvements to articles. See WP:5P for an overview of policies. I see that you have created Book of Pure Logic and that article needs quite a bit of attention. Please see the notability policy that must be satisfied by each article. In particular, WP:NBOOK discusses the requirements for an article about a book. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, well I would think you must have just landed from some far illogic institution, that does not know any "laws", ok. I AM WELL EXPERIENCED WITH LOGIC AND WIKIPEDIA ! Forever true (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

censusindiamaps.net

I found a link to http://censusindiamaps.net in almost 147 pages which is nothing but a spam. Even though the name of this site looks too official, it is nothing official and is only spam. Now these links should be removed. How to go about? BrownyCat (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right that censusindiamaps is used in over 140 pages (LinkSearch), but I can't find any previous discussion about the site. The standard procedure would be: (1) consider if site is helpful as an external link per WP:EL, or sufficiently reliable for use as a reference; (2) enquire at the appropriate noticeboard (WP:ELN for external links, or WP:RSN for reliability); (3) if warranted, report at WT:SPAM (but only for bad cases); (4) remove unhelpful links. For cases like this, there is no easy way to remove the spam: it has to be done manually. I may be able to help with that, but, we first need a consensus that removal is appropriate.

In a quick look, I could not see any useful content at censusindiamaps.net (in fact, with scripts blocked, I could not see anything much at all). However, I did not spend more than a minute looking, and I see that the site is used as a reference in many articles.

Did you notice a particular user adding these links recently? Do you have some other reason to believe it is spam? Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The website has no home page but is linking a government website 'http://www.censusindia.net/'. Yesterday your count was 140 but today it has swelled to 168. A close research at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srikakulam_district&action=historysubmit&diff=234566180&oldid=232896781 has revealed that User: ChiragPatnaik - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChiragPatnaik has done this spammy work replacing the original government links. Most of the time he has done using IP addresses like in the case of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jalna_district&limit=500&action=historyBrownyCat (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is best to avoid claiming someone is spamming unless there is really good evidence. A quick look makes me think that ChiragPatnaik is a good editor in excellent standing, and they have only made two edits this year, neither of which was spam. I have not yet found any good information, but some searching led me to WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 37#Census Data (and some other discussions) where it is clear that the wikiproject was involved in working with the links. I suspect the site provides a Java app which I have disabled for security reasons, so I don't see anything useful.

I have taken a local copy of the current 168 results found by LinkSearch, and will check again in a couple of days to see what new sites have been added. Then I can form an opinion about whether the site is currently being spammed. I tried a tool called COIBOT but it says that there is no major recent activity in adding that link. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have just checked again. The list is now in a different order, but after sorting there is no change from two days ago. Will probably check again in a few days. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• I have just checked again—no changes. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

India v South Asia ANI

This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

where is the appropriate place to share a collection of NGS data analysis software?

Hi, we would share a link to a collection of NGS software (e.g. aligners, assembler, etc.) at this page. Users can easily obtain an overview on the available tools for analyzing their data. I put the link first under "See also" but Johnuniq remove it with a statement "not appropriate for an external link to be in 'See also'; please explain how link helps on talk page".

• Could any of you help to find an appropriate place to share the link? There are already external links in "See also", "Genome Technology Access Center",and that's why I put another link there too.
• The reason to share this tool collection link is that I think it should help NGS users to quickly gain an overview on what are available to help them dealing with the exploding amount of NGS data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon mei (talk • contribs) 08:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment at Talk:DNA sequencing#where is the appropriate place to share a collection of NGS data analysis software?. Please use "new section" to add a new topic to a talk page (that puts it at the bottom). To reply to a comment, click the "[edit]" link in the right hand margin, on the line containing the heading. There is no need to reply here, but you might like to do that at the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for welcoming me. --Babank (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's great to welcome a new editor and mean it! Often established editors need to welcome someone while informing them that they are approaching Wikipedia incorrectly, so when I noticed your good contributions I had to give a welcome. If you have any questions about procedures, I may be able to help. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Agwa de Bolivia

TO THE PERSON THAT JUST TOOK OUT MY COMMENTS ON AGWA DE BOLIVIA, WHY DO YOU NOT CHECK THE FACTS? WHY DO YOU WANT TO MISS INFORM THE PUBLIC? WHY ARE YOU AFFRAID OF THE TRUTH? GIVE ME A CALL MY NAME IS SERGIO RUIZ-MIER, MY PHONE NUMBER IS -------------. GIVE ME A CALL. I AM NOT AFFRAID OF YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sruizmier (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you want to let people know about certain things, but Wikipedia is not a place where advocacy is allowed (see WP:NOT). Imagine how articles would look if pro and con people added their personal views. If you have any comments about how the article might be improved please click "new section" at the top of Talk:Agwa de Bolivia (liqueur). However, advocacy or unsourced assertions are not permitted on any page in Wikipedia, including talk (discussion) pages. I removed your phone number because you don't want random people who might see this page calling you. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Webzcas

Hi John,

I have seen your message and commented accordingly on the article as requested. I would really appreciate feedback. Apologies for any trouble caused by my lack of understanding the project.

Dave

Webzcas (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your considerate response. You have added a very small number of links and appear to understand the situation well now that it has been pointed out, so there is no problem, and you should have no concern. I commented at the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John. I have again responded. I appreciate the reassurance and your prompt reply.

Webzcas (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A good, natural selection

All bases within my experience and immediate thoughts were covered by the assertions made, but I did realize and consider that there was an underlying likelihood also of admin-necessity, strictly playing by what's on a page, vs. what should be on the page in broader and more neutral context, if some slack was allowed; my comments reflected the notable slack available, behind and for such a view, without questioning the validity of the sourcing question you raised. Your comments are much appreciated, both as some acceptance of that, but also in an effort to move the article along. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but if you want others to consider the edits, please reply at Talk:Natural selection#WP:BRD for informed context in lede?. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for removing that personal attack from my user page. And me not even being French... :-)) --Crusio (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

John-- yes, I noticed that as I was typing my response to him. I nearly scrapped my response upon seeing that, but I figured the prescribed dose of humility was still in order. Unethical, perhaps, but I'm not the type to simply ignore a challenge like that. Thanks, though! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Crusio, then what's all that foreign stuff doing on your talk page!??joke! Anyway, it's good to have a happy ending (i.e. the problem user was quickly indeffed). Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

usertalk pages

~Take a glance at my talk page. Sets new standards... Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's sweet, and you have to admit they have a point! WeHumanoids wouldn't want to offend any others who may read the article. And your talk is their first edit (while logged on) for 15 months (interesting contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

They're watching our every move... Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Magnetic-core memory

Hi John, could perhaps keep an eye on the discussion at Talk:Magnetic-core memory. Cheers, —Ruud 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, don't have time right now, but I've put it on my watchlist. A few days ago I used "please read before write" as an edit summary and wondered if anyone would notice... Johnuniq (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A.Nesamony

That particular EL which was removed by your edit simply explains the oppression & subsequent liberation that took place in South Travancore in yester years, before the formation of Kerala & Kanyakumari district, for which Nesamony is still remembered. I feel even now that EL is very important in understanding the mind-set of Marshal Nesamony, without any prejudice or bias against/for him. Kindly clarify further on the subject. With regards,--Kumaripriya (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing A. Nesamony and the external link http://kidstudies.org (Kanyakumari Institute of Development Studies). A lot of people add a lot of external links, and it is necessary to be fairly ruthless in order to clean them out. A quick look at the link did not convince me that it satisfied WP:EL so I removed it. However, from your good edits and very collaborative discussion (thanks!) I am sure what you say is correct, and a page from the site should be linked. However, an external link needs to go to a page directly relevant to the article topic (see WP:ELNO#13), and when I view the link with browser scripting off, I don't see a page about Nesamony. Please add one external link to the page you mention (readers can choose to view the home page if they want, without us linking to it). Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Natural Selection

Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at Tmol42's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Collapsing of diffs for Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe

Hi, could you please produce one of your shorter lists of diffs for Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and put it on the talk page of that article? I'll be looking at this article next and there are a lot of diffs to go through. I find going through your list much easier, especially when going backwards and forwards between the diff pages and the actual edits.

Many thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for your work in the clean up. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: deletion of statement in Guns, Germs, and Steel

I've been thinking about trying to improve this article, so I'm watching it. I agree with you that the text you deleted is inaccurate, but it might be close to the mark. You might look at pp. 46-47 of the book (available at http://books.google.com/books?id=kLKTa_OeoNIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=guns+germs+and+steel&hl=en) and let me know what you think. Maybe we can come up with an accurate statement. Bloody Viking (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing the history at Guns, Germs, and Steel, I noticed another recent edit, and I just added a comment on the article talk page that one paragraph contains OR. I decided to not remove the para myself, yet, but I put what I hope is a helpful explanation of why it needs to go. Yes, I'd like to get involved in editing, and I'll be watching for developments, although I have to warn you that while I spend quite a lot of time here, it's mostly routine stuff where I don't have to think very hard. I'll have another look at the book as you suggest, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In Case You Haven't Seen...

Hi Johnuniq! I see you didn't get any notice here about the SAQ's being featured on the main page this Saturday. My guess is that the cutoff point for notification is those who have made 100 or more edits. But statistics can lie. No number of edit counts can give a true idea of the worth of your contributions. Of course Tom, Nishidani, and Paul put in the most work. But Xover and I were notified, and, if we deserve to bask in a little of the glory, so do you. As far as I'm concerned, you were among those who can be considered a "significant contributor". It was a pleasure working with you on the article. Oh, and I suppose you could use a bit of a rest, as can I, but eventually I wouldn't mind collaborating with you on that custom template for the citations that we talked about what now seems like a long time ago. Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alan. I'll have to add and remove a few more commas in separate edits next time because I did see that certain topic banned people were notified—ah, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Yes, I will be ready on April 23, and I might be of some small assistance with the citation issue, but it looks pretty hard to get a general solution, from what I recall. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally agreed about the commas, etc. The Wiki world, like the world at large, is certainly less than perfect. As for the template, I hear you. I'm thinking now that it probably doesn't pay to mess with that, after all. Better to spend time adding content, and Wikipedia is still woefully deficient in some areas. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just noted this (while checking if the history merge project was being discussed). I second Alan's point. Whatever we three stooges did, it would have never got anywhere, and probably would have been carpet-bombed back in short order to an unstable, contested mess, under a 'seige/sea of troubles' had we not been herded, corralled, advised, and on occasion rapped over the knuckles by several outside editors who whipped it into final form, and Johnuniq's unobtrusive but technically acute shepherding played a seminal role in this. While I'm at it, thanks also to you, Alan. You chaps made hard work an easy ride. Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You COI edit

Hello, please explain...

Do you have any suggestions to make for the article?

I do not see fairness in tagging this article without suggesting edits.

Thank you

"It is too easy for someone to put a WP:COI tag on an article. Editors need to take responsibility prior to tagging someone else's hard work in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF. Editors must be able to show that they have taken the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Many of the editors of the articles in question have not been treated with the respect laid out by the WP Admin. Before COI editors become the police, judge & jury it's important to the integrity of WP that these guidelines be followed. In a case where an article I had written was tagged the "COI editor" did not contact me at all prior to tagging my article. When trying to communicate with the "COI editor" and asking for specifics they said " I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation". I believe it is important to the integrity of WP that a COI editor become "well versed" in what they are doing before they take action.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)" Jespah 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The sooner the SPA editors stop editing John Prendergast and stop arguing about the COI tag, the sooner it will be removed. When an editor focuses on a particular topic with no explanation, the COI tag is standard procedure. Strident suggestions that it be removed serve only to indicate the appropriateness of the tag. There is no need to comment on my talk page (although of course you are welcome to do so). Instead, you should present your views at one of Talk:John Prendergast and WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#John Prendergast (I am watching both).

It's a minor matter, but your signature does not include a link to your user or your talk page. That violates WP:SIGLINK and must be rectified ASAP (if needed, ask at WP:HELPDESK). Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

would you mind telling me how to include a link to my talk page? Thank you. Jespah 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You would get a better answer at the WP:HELPDESK link I mentioned, but I think you must have attempted to create a custom signature, and you did not include the wikitext to make a link. The simplest would be to remove your custom signature, in which case you would have a standard signature like mine. You would do that by clicking "my preferences" that you should see at the top of any page when logged on, and deleting the contents of the "Signature:" box, then click "Save" at the bottom (I think that would work). You might like to also look at WP:TP for information on indenting comments (I added an extra colon in front of your last comment). Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Science in medieval Islam up on the ANI board

It suddenly occurrs to me that while you are not mentioned by name, you have an interest in this discussion. My apologies, I am but slowly learning how to properly use these procedures under various circumstances.

Aquib (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a bad habit of lurking at WP:ANI and have already commented. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping 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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 April 2011

Thanks. I have been ignoring recent "discussions", but I guess I will join in the arbcom case if it looks like developing—it needs settling, and I am now sorry that I suggested the topic ban not include talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Hey! I noticed that you have previously reverted an edit at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day to declare it an annual event. I've was having a conversation with a new WP:SPA about why it isn't inherently an annual event. The conversation has degraded into two editors flinging derogatory words at me. The degradation of the conversation has resulted in the two editors pushing to edit war which I won't have a part of. I'm leaving this message here for you and any other editors who have been involved with the subject being an annual event or not as an invitation to either join the conversation or simply edit the page as you see fit. Regardless of your opinion and how it compares to mine, I feel like the situation is degrading and more eyes on the situation will only help work things out. OlYeller^Talktome 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I had been trying to avoid that (I have noticed the back-and-forth, but hoped someone else would handle it). I have just added my thoughts at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day#Summary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding tree shaping

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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Technical question

Hi John. Regarding the Jagged cleanup, I vaguely remember you offering to make all individual diffs of an editor on any given article appear as a single one. If technically feasible, this would be very helpful in the cleanup process. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sure. What would you like? I haven't pursued this because whereas the process might reduce, say, 200 diffs to 50 diffs, it's still really hard following the 50 diffs. However, I can do a bunch of them if you like. I had hoped (in a dreamy way) to one day develop some clever diff software that could follow the edits and work out what an editor (e.g. Jagged) had added and which was still in the article—not the precise text but the topics, based on sentence fragments. The result would be a list of items in the article that were introduced by Jagged.

The diffing is hard, and I don't expect to achieve anything. However, I did partially implement something simpler. A script can extract all [[wikitext like this (links)]] and all <ref>wikitext like this (refs)</ref> from a revision of an article. It is then easy for a script to follow each of Jagged's edits and work out exactly what links and refs were added. I was thinking that seeing where the links and refs are currently used in the article would then show what text was introduced by Jagged. However, the result is again too large to be useful (although it might be handy on smaller, less heavily edited articles). I went to a lot of trouble to try it once to see how it looked, and I kept going even when I could see how useless it was. The result is at Talk:Science in medieval Islam/Cleanup. On that page, the refs and links added by Jagged don't involve much manual work, but the "Material still in article" section involved a lot of hard sweat (for a trial, I was manually doing what I hoped clever software might be able to achieve). As you can see, the result is too massively large to be of any real use, but I can look at doing the refs and/or links on a couple of other articles if you would like to see the result. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the simpler system is more workable, that along the line of reducing 200 diffs to 50 diffs. Can you do this, for example, for Avicenna? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the result is at Talk:Avicenna#Misuse of sources. Give me a list of any others you want. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Please put them here, at my talk page or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists wherever you think it is best:

• Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi
• Nasir al-Din al-Tusi
• Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī
• Hero of Alexandria
• Diophantus
• Banū Mūsā
• Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi
• Watermill Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Abbas Ibn Firnas
• Ptolemy
• Ibn al-Shatir
• Battle of Gaugamela
• List of Indian inventions and discoveries Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Apollodorus of Damascus Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Eeek, I see timestamp "10:54, 30 April 2011" above. I guess I missed noticing that message because someone else posted around the same time (I normally check the history, but I failed to see it). Anyway, I will do all the above within a few hours. I think I'll put each on the article talk page? If I do one of my standard "Misuse of sources" sections, it alerts anyone following the article history now or later about the background, and shows that there is another editor (me) concerned about the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Let's do it this way. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All done, I think (although I did it a bit quickly to be really sure). These are links to the sections I added:

• Talk:Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Nasir al-Din al-Tusi#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Hero of Alexandria#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Diophantus#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Banū Mūsā#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Watermill#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Abbas Ibn Firnas#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Ptolemy#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Ibn al-Shatir#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:Battle of Gaugamela#Misuse_of_sources
• Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries#Misuse_of_sources

I have worked out how to do this fairly easily now (I now have a script to generate the wikitext to be added to the talk page), so after you have had a look at some of these and checked that they seem ok, add a new section below with any more, and I'll do them. I suppose I could just work down the major items from the Top edits page? If the text in the section that I add should be changed or enhanced, let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed edit from C programming

YOor removal of my huge section was somewhat surprising but now I see your reasons. IT will take me a couple of days to reorganize it as you have suggested.

I interspersed the previous user's comment because he raised at least two different concepts and I wanted to repluy to each one separately. I still do. So how do you suggest I do that? Old_Wombat (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to cause you trouble, but it is important that a comment by a previous editor is still able to be read. Unfortunately, the large amount of refactoring that you did altered a previous comment such that it was not possible to work out which parts of the text belonged where. There is no good way to intersperse comments (which rather suits WP:NOTFORUM since we aren't supposed to be conducting multiple threads in a section). With an occasional rare exception, it is best to add new comments at the very bottom. To make it clear you are replying to a particular editor, you can start the comment with the editor's username. Rarely, one might quote a small piece of the editor's text (perhaps in italics), and then add the reply. Since the point of an article talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, it is best to focus a reply on the article rather than on a previous comment. If you think that certain text like "curly brace" should be removed, the best thing is to focus on reasons for that. If a previous comment has said "curly brace is needed because of XYZ", the reply might say "XYZ does not apply because of ABC". Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

UTF-8

Hi -- I restored BabelStone's version, since the table in question specifically addresses the Unicode code space. Although 21 bits (1FFFFF) can be represented in four bytes using the UTF-8 scheme, the Unicode code space stops at 10FFFF. -- Elphion (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I managed to work out the reason after being reverted by two people! The article should point out why the table stops at 10FFFF with more than the vague "Basic Multilingual Plane" link which ends up at Plane (Unicode). Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- I briefly looked at trying to add something about the space ending there, but no quick edit suggested itself that wasn't just belaboring the obvious. The text around the table needs a more thoughtful structural change. -- Elphion (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

That looks great. If you hadn't picked up the hint, and pressed round for the move, no one would have thought of getting this right. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A pleasure! Graham87 of course did all the work, but I'm glad to have made a small contribution. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding content deletion in sinusitis article

Hello Johnuniq,

This is regarding my addition in Sinusitis article. My addition was removed by quoting some rules and I understand that.

I would like you to look at the world through my eyes. I have suffered from chronic sinusitis complications for many years now. I have a masters degree in engineering and I have been using the internet for over 12 yrs now. using all my knowledge, and searches on the web, I was not able to find a remedy for my problem. If we rely on doctors or government organizations only, to create knowledge and raise awareness, there will be many more people who will undergo the same problem as mine though the problem already has a solution.

I would like to request you to be an enabler in sharing my remedies and information in the sinusitis article. you are welcome to quote it as unverified. However, I'm sure you understand that many people with same condition as mine will find this information very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilal728 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the problems editing Sinusitis, as well as the difficulties you have had with the condition. Unfortunately the Internet is inhabited by both good people with helpful ideas, such as yourself, and also bad people who insert random thoughts, spam, and other nonsense. Editors here have no way to judge which content is good, so there are policies that specify what kind of information is suitable here. As I mentioned on your talk page, all information here must be verifiable using reliable sources, and WP:5P provides a good overview. If I hadn't removed your text, someone else would have. If you want to discuss the situation, please ask at WP:Help desk.

You could also add your text as a suggestion at Talk:Sinusitis and ask if any other editor would like to comment on whether the material should be used in the article. This diff shows the change you made to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1:9

Unles you can prove 1=9 plese revert your edit . Or explain why for you this numerical falacy does not mather. Do you need additional explanation in this mather? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Human evolution is very tedious. Just put your thoughts on the article's talk page and wait for discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We can wait, however this discredit this website as source of information... but, what you can add to the meritum? (so far nothing) You using now thret of force. Do you understand the subject ? If so please produce excerpt, a quote supporting your edit/revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing that needs to be discussed here. Comments re the article belong at Talk:Human evolution. If you want to ask about how Wikipedia works, see WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Charles Darwin

Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at Talk:Charles Darwin.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And thanks for jumping in there, :) --Artoasis (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm watching the article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Operational request pertaining to discussion on scope of vandalism typology.

{{Talkback|Geofferybard}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geofferybard#Administrative_action:_does_it_ever_cross_the_line.3F Thanks. Bard गीता 22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting immensely complicated. I find it unlikely that WP:Vandalism has any major defects because it has been stable for a long time, with just minor tweaks, and has been reviewed by many editors. I will give some sort of response at WT:Vandalism or possibly your talk page, but I'm not sure what else can be said. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Yaris678/Deny automated recognition

Hi Johnuniq,

I wonder if you have any more thoughts on my user essay. On Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition#Deny automated recognition you said you weren't in the mood for careful reading... I thought maybe you mood would have changed.  :-) Or maybe you have a response to the additional comment I posted there.

Regards,

Yaris678 (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have responded more at WT:Deny recognition#Deny automated recognition. If you have any thoughts regarding the other activity at that page, please add to the talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BLPN - bobby gonzalez

Hi, as a reverter there, please help to resolve the reports at the BLPN here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am watching the article and have put a summary at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#bobby Gonzalez. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

David Eppstein

Hi John!

Thank you very much for your contributions to the recent flare up of allegations regarding conflict of interest. (There are two COI discussions, which were dismissed.) Your chronology should be useful to any (regrettable) future discussions.

Thanks again!

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to make a small contribution. I saw that the editor had been blocked, but decided to proceed with all the details because the matter is sure to be raised again. The misguided commentary irritates me because it is a misuse of Wikipedia, so my comment at WP:COIN is worthwhile, despite being redundant now.

I hope you will have an opportunity to add more material to the article because some comments on the talk page show there is good material that should be recorded. Doing that would help the article and would help with future notability nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you min explaining what you ment in the revert in Quran and science ?Tauhidaerospace (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

this[1]

When an editor reverts an edit on an article, any discussion should take place on the talk page of the article. There is nothing urgent about your proposal for Qur'an and science that requires immediate attention, and I suggest you should give some attention to the WQA report that you raised (permalink). Four uninvolved editors have commented, and it would be appropriate for you to respond to at least acknowledge their concerns with your report. Regarding WP:REDFLAG, I will respond to any question at the article talk page in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon edits

Hi, I noticed that you reverted some edits in Felisa Wolfe-Simon. I completely agree with the reversion, but for some reason the current version of the article shows the un-reverted version, even though your change is listed in the history. I do not understand why this is, but it is definitely a problem with the article, rather than my computer etc (I tried multiple machines and locations). I don't know if you have the same problem, but I thought I'd tell you. Best, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but I do not see the problem. Wikipedia has been doing some strange things lately, with reports of very slow operation and consequent glitches at WP:VPT. Perhaps some caching issue applied to the servers providing pages to your geographic area?? I just did a minor cleanup, mainly to correct a typo recently added to the lead. Please report whether there is any problem text now (i.e. after a protracted period and an edit). If there is a problem, quote a piece of the text that you believe should not be in the article, but which you see.

The article still has some issues, and there are a couple of sentences which probably should be omitted as not directly related to the subject (and which violate good English). However, they seem not too bad. If you have any thoughts on that, you might post to the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the issue is resolved now. I'm wondering if it had something to do with the maintenance they were carrying out yesterday, although the problem persisted even after the scheduled end of that period. Whatever it was, it's gone now... Cheers, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Game

A discussion about improving Wikipedia's help documentation inspired an idea--tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it, or know some editors or coders who might? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. You can add feedback at User_talk:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game where discussion has begun, if you like. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 17:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this interesting project, which I will watch (with reservations, as I just commented that using "game" is dubious). Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping Workshop

Hi at Arbitration I asked you to please clarify want Sydney Bluegum is advocating my diff in section [2] I posted here as I thought my question was looking a bit lost at sea. Blackash have a chat 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that the section with my comment and your request is now on the talk page. I have been busy in the last 24 hours and don't have much time now, and after a quick look, I cannot see anything that Sydney Bluegum is advocating at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop that I might respond to. Please quote a small piece of the text, or the timestamp, so I can search for it. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet more wasted time discussing nonsense! When DGG recommends delete (diff) you can bet that deletion is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you want a mop?

You've been around for quite a while and always are a calm and helpful person. If you're interested, I'd be happy to nominate you for adminship. Cheers, —Ruud 09:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I would be honored. However, I won't accept nomination now for a couple of reasons. First, I agree with those at WP:RFA who want admins to have a reasonable record of article development (some of those mentioning this expect rather unrealistic achievements, but I think an admin candidate should have done more than me, in order to demonstrate they understand why we are here, and what it feels like to have others pick apart your work). Second, I'm pushed for time currently and am only engaging in a small number of matters which require thought (most of my time here consists of routine push-backs against bad edits). If I reach a time when I feel ready, I will contact you. Thanks again. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy call

You are mentioned here. Fuhiy (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to take the rough with the smooth I guess... Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pound (mass) revert

Where in WP:TALK does it prohibit contribution to "old discussion"? Particularly when the topic of discussion has yet to be resolved and is still the topic of a current dispute? That you found my comment so quickly highlights location of my new comment in an "old" thread isn't a problem when looking for new contributions. If you can point to a particular policy section that expressly forbids my contribution, fair enough. Otherwise please stop censoring my involvement. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going through my watchlist, and the timing meant that I happened to arrive at Talk:Pound (mass) shortly after you. Since there is an ongoing problem I have put a further reply at User talk:203.129.23.146#Purpose of talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A note

Dear John, Forgive me if I'm bullying you. But I should say the fact that Bircham International University is unaccredited is mentioned everywhere along the article. It is also clearly explained in the institution's website as well. I do not understand how anybody can confuse a Consumer Protection with an accreditation. Consumer Protection does not ensure education quality and it does not pretend so as far as I know. I believe that it is an important fact to inform that an institution like Bircham offers some protection to the consumers. I came back with this because recently Bircham was granted the Spain Online Trust seal. This seal is an important for any institution offering online products or services. there a category devoted to educational institutions. If you take a few minutes to browse these list you will find the major banks and companies included. The reliability and importance of this fact is there. I might add the following, you can revert it, its your right at wiki, or might think for some time.

In 2011, BIU was audited and granted the Online Trust Seal also endorsed by the Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs Shoovrow (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The place for this is Talk:Bircham International University where there are now three other editors who disagree with your edit. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re your comments relating to Naveen Jain article

Re [3]

I think it best if I avoid further discussions concerning Jimbo. Maybe after the situation has de-escalated substantially.

In the article discussions, I'm trying to get editors to focus on being "very firm about the use of high quality sources." I've tried to explain the charity discussion further on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

While it is conceivable that Jimbo might be in league with the forces of evil, and trying to disrupt Wikipedia by adding nonsense to Naveen Jain, an alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference of opinion and it is more productive to choose which battles are worth fighting. You might be the only one in step, or it might be time to take that article off your watch list. Perhaps you are correct that a few dubious external links should be removed per various acronyms. However, you are still wrong because there is just no benefit from fighting several good editors who cannot see the problem—there are other things to do. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"While it is conceivable..." No, it's not, and no one is suggesting it is other than you. If that's how you want to start this discussion, then I'm wasting my time with you. Sad that you place such a shadow over all your comments. --Ronz (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling in signaling/dialing articles

I hope you like my mending. Call me Josh; I'm not an utter newbie here but will by all means welcome help and advice.

:) Lincoln Josh (talk)

Josh's recent moving

O'k, I see you've mentioned some convention, haven't you? The point is that I'd started mending spelling on a score of pages at once: here I realised that I need to mend links, too (as usual), but I also realised that a half of the articles should be thereby renamed — and the sooner the better, because people might at all sudden miss them.
I didn't know that most of them already had their pair to redirect; but some didn't.
The first episode of such renaming seems now to be finished: all the moved pages reportedly have their pairs.

If something wrong still remains to be considered, please notice it the sooner the better. Thank you very much:) Lincoln Josh (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned at your talk page, you are very likely to be reverted per WP:ENGVAR. There are a significant number of junk articles at Wikipedia, but the articles you worked on were obviously of reasonably high quality, and I'm not sure why you would think it appropriate to fiddle with the spelling.

I think you moved these articles (and talk pages):

• Channel Associated Signaling –to– Channel Associated Signalling
• Common Channel Signaling –to– Common Channel Signalling
• Dual-tone multi-frequency signaling –to– Dual-tone multi-frequency signalling
• Pulse dialing –to– Pulse dialling
• Signaling (telecommunications) –to– Signalling (telecommunications)
• Signaling System No 7 –to– Signalling System No 7

Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've edited all the content on these pages. Only spelling. I must say that I'm always checking if the source of the term I see "American" is American or not. Additionally, I've found a number of pages with British spelling in the same area. Some of them have links to other European wikis — and all seem to be "Briticised".

That's not enough. The area seems to be divided in two slightly unequal parts: at one part we can observe "American articles" redirected from "British ones", at the other — otherwise. I won't do anything with it, of course; but we can obviously see that there is no standard here "who is cooler", I'm sorry.

Yes, Wiki was started in the US, but English was started not in the US. This is a room for discussion, I agree. I want just ACCENT on the fact that I haven't done anything extraordinary — we're already observing all that on Wiki.

And — YES, I think it's a subject for serious and wide discussion. What do you think about it? I'd like to know if such a discussion was already opened somewhere on the Project. If not — it's high time. Lincoln Josh (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

PS. When I am doing such work, I'm always checking if all links and so on remain proper and active. Lincoln Josh (talk)

You have not indicated whether you have read WP:ENGVAR. After gaining some experience with Wikipedia, you will understand that it is not helpful to change any kind of style that is established in an article. That particularly applies when an editor has not participated in article development or discussion. When I get more time, I will check your changes and probably revert them, and move all the articles back. Obviously, editors have spent a long time discussing styles (see WP:MOS for a start), and considerable experience would be needed to decide whether some proposal for a change might be worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Regard them as a whole — and as a projective suggestion if they may be so easily reverted. Lincoln Josh (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made some undoing but not all. As for re-moving, I didn't manage to find so easy a way to accomplish that as to undo edits. I haven't moved anything back. (But anyway there've remained both American and British headings for those articles — there were automatic creation of redirects!) (The good thing is that all the links are still proper and working:).) Lincoln Josh (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your links!:)

I never was there before: Wiki is a great project and has lots of items. I have found WP:ENGVAR exceptionally interesting and helpful:)
I've got what you said about "style", and I have to admit that. What do you think about this — Wikipedia:UW? I've visited several such pages and bookmarked them for further learning:) I hope for our further effective collaboration;)
Yours, Lincoln Josh (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) :D

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincoln Josh (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary

For later reference, if needed, these are the articles affected by recent edits:

• Channel Associated Signaling ← Channel Associated Signalling
• Common Channel Signaling ← Common Channel Signalling
• Dialling
• Direct distance dialing
• Dual-tone multi-frequency signaling ← Dual-tone multi-frequency signalling
• E and M signaling ← E and M signalling
• In-band signaling
• International Direct Dialling
• Line signaling ← Line signalling
• Multi-frequency signaling ← Multi-frequency signalling
• Out-of-band
• Pulse dialing ← Pulse dialling
• Register signaling ← Register signalling
• Robbed-bit signaling ← Robbed-bit signalling
• Session Initiation Protocol
• Signaling (telecommunications) ← Signalling (telecommunications)
• Signaling System No 7 ← Signalling System No 7
• Subscriber trunk dialling

I have reverted all the spelling changes and moved all the articles back to their original titles. Exception: the spelling change in International Direct Dialling made that article consistent with its title, and I did not revert it. It is awkward that there is a spelling style inconsistency between articles, but that is part of Wikipedia. If consistency were wanted, a first step would be a discussion at a suitable wikiproject, although that might not be easy in practice. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing "Human" article

Ummm...thanks? I was correcting what I thought was some graffiti in the article (It said "Stephanie... zebras are human" or something like that). Not sure why my edit would be tied to the graffiti and thought of as a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.158.165 (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my error. I have replaced my mistaken notice with a welcome at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No harm done, thanks for the welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.158.165 (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Viral Video entry

Hi Johnuniq, Why did you undo rev 436465460 by 145.7.224.13 (www.mytagtv.com) ? Is this site not an perfect example of viral videos and a valid addition in the external urls section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.7.224.21 (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting the addition of external links is unfortunately rather common, and it is necessary for there to be a good reason why a particular link should be added. The place to discuss this is at the article talk page, and I have put an explanation at Talk:Viral video#External links. If you would like to respond, please do so there. By the way, when creating a new message on a talk page, please click "new section" at the top (which adds the new section at the bottom of the page, which is where editors expect to find it). Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

World's technological capacity entries

Hi Johnuniq, I appreciate your effort to minimize spam in wikipedia entries, and I have to confess that I was quite lazy last night when I dedicated some time to work on including the research results of this recent Science paper in several wikipedia articles that can be informed by them. However, even if my laziness resulted in signs that might be reminiscent of "exactly what a spammer would do" (as you put it), especially using the same reference and sometimes even the same wording, I would please kindly ask you to not simply blindly revert all entries made without even reading them... Many of them were carefully and uniquely formulated (i.e. contributions to the article in calculator, broadcasting, satellite television, telecentre, mobile phone, history of internet, digital, bit, entropy (information theory), etc). It took me several hours to work on them... This being said, I agree that I was sloppy with some of them, and will not undo your deletion (i.e. until I find time to elaborate tailor-made contributions), and I thank your vigilant eye. However, several of the ones that you "categorically" deleted are unique contributions that are (a) based on high-quality research results (i.e. published in maybe the most respected scientific journal out there), (b) are extremely informative for the content of the articles, (c) are tailor-made contributions to the articles. P.S. The reference includes two external links to the article (1) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 (which is the official link, but one has to have subscription to access the article, such as many universities have), and (2) through this page: http://www.martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html (because it turns out that the Journal Science allows the open public to access the article for free, as long as they go through this specific webpage (doesn't work to just send the link, it won't be enabled... the user has to go through the "author's personal webiste to get free access"...) that's just how it works... Please let me know if you have any further disagreements with these contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by GEBStgo (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that Wikipedia can be a rough place, but you put essentially the same information with the same links (including a youtube link in a reference) in over 25 articles. I left a couple (see LinkSearch), but reverted in these articles:

• Bit
• Broadband Internet access
• Broadcasting
• Calculator
• Computer data storage
• Data storage device
• Digital
• Digital broadcasting
• Entropy (information theory)
• History of the Internet
• Information
• Information Age
• Information and communications technology
• Information revolution
• Information society
• Information technology
• Mobile phone
• Moore's law
• Optical storage
• Paper
• Personal computer
• Satellite television
• Telecentre
• Telecommunication
• Video game console

I think there would need to be a good reason to add similar information with similar links to multiple articles, and a discussion should be held at a suitable wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Not Being Helpful International Space Station

'there is a clear consensus that the changes are helpful'

possibly before you make unhelpful remarks like that you may care to take a look at the Wikipedia:Consensus page.

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

You may wish to look at the 'frequent changes' I have written on the talkpage and which wind up in the article.

Do please read the talkpage which you are talking about first, it's less embarrassing for you that way. Penyulap _talk 04:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that you slow down, and stick to comments that focus on building the article. Of the 482 edits made to Talk:International Space Station during March–June 2011, 282 were by yourself, and your recent comments refer to errors in the article, yet no specific details are provided. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

specific details about some of the errors in the lead section which still go un-noticed are cunningly disguised in a section titled 'Some of the errors in the lead section which still go un-noticed.' It's brilliantly hidden on a talkpage of an article called international space station

Also, I have no intention of slowing down, It may have escaped your attention but there is a 15 wikiproject working Bee going on in the article. Penyulap _talk 11:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Partially I'm testing out the new WikiLove feature.. but mostly, I wanted to thank you for your kind words about me at the recent AN/I thread. They meant a lot. Cheers, Mlm42 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure I like the misguided "enhancements" that are being foisted on us, but this good example might show me to be wrong. Anyway, my few words of support for you at ANI were the least that could be done given all the good work you have been doing under difficult circumstances. I still think the editor in question needs firm guidance (i.e. unhelpful comments reverted) before they will ever understand, but we'll see. Johnuniq (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Miradre

Hello. I am not quite sure what this editor is up to, but I noticed that they are adding irrelevant information, loosely to related to R&I, in articles where it is inappropriate and tangential, i.e. WP:UNDUE. Miradre effectively added a "see also" in List of international rankings by linking to two books of Richard Lynn under the heading "demographics". She has been very evasive about what was intended by those links: to me it looks like spamming and advocacy. She is attempting to add R&I information to articles where it is WP:UNDUE. She seems to be wasting the time of a lot of editors; at no point sp far in her extensive discussions have I seen her agreeing with any other editor, including two administrators. Things seem to be getting out of control. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mathsci, this is again incivility. You know full well that I agree with other editors on many points. Why do you again make false statements about me wanting a demographics heading when I have repeatedly asked you to stop this? [4] Again, consider your promise to stay away from R&I which was a condition for the ArbCom lifting your topic ban on this area.[5]Miradre (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The above is exactly what I would expect from what I have seen of Miradre's edits at Guns, Germs, and Steel. Clearly some firm action will be required in order for this problem to be rectified. Miradre: It is difficult to deal with POV pushing on Wikipedia, as no doubt you have noticed. However, it will be stopped in due course. Advocacy will need to be investigated and cleaned up. Johnuniq (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping

An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
3. User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
4. User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
5. The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
6. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)