User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Edits to MFD front matter

Hi, sorry for the slow reply - your message got mixed up in Signpost subscriptions

Re your message, I'm not sure how "ctrl-click" got there. It must have been a bad find and replace. Very strange. Thanks for removing them. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. To remind myself, this in relation to tweaks at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dietrich v The Queen

Moved here from inadvertent posting at User:Johnuniq.

Dear John

Dear Barek

I am content to have my comments on Dietrich v The Queen remain in the Discussion section. I accept that I am not the author of the original article and that I should not 'edit' the work of another.

However, I have known and been a friend of Ollie Dietrich [aka Hugo Rich] for more than 30 years. It was our collaborative effort in the filth and squalor of the notorious ‘H’ Division at Her Majesty’s Prison, Pentridge that laid the foundations for the High Court decision. Many of the submissions that I typed for Ollie and which he read into the transcript at trial survived all the way to the High Court and can be found in the judgments of Justice Gauldron. I persuaded Mr David O’Doherty, of Counsel to run the matter before the State Victorian Court of Appeal and Mr David Grace, then of Counsel to run the matter before the High Court.

The recently retired Roman Catholic Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Murray Gleason AO (not a member of the High Court in Dietrich) in his speech “Rights and Values” given to the Melbourne Catholic Lawyers Association in Melbourne on 18 June 2004 took the opportunity to once again pontificate Roman Catholic Law and Doctrine positing the view as the central theme of his speech that no rights are absolute.

Gleeson posited the question, “If two rights, neither of which is absolute, conflict, and a court is required to decide, by a process of "balancing", which is to prevail, and to what extent, what is the intellectual process by which that task is to be accomplished”?

The answer was also provided. Of course, in harmony with Roman Catholic Law and Doctrine, “When rights conflict, a decision as to which is to prevail, and to what extent, can only be justified rationally by reference to some value external to the "balancing" process”.

“To describe something as a "right" may itself require justification. It is a commonplace feature of political and legal debate that advocates of various interests seek to characterise those interests as rights, thereby staking a claim for weight or recognition that may be contestable. By calling an interest a right, you may trump another interest. If there is a contest, then, again, it can only be resolved rationally (as distinct from resolution by power or weight of numbers) by reference to some value”.

“In the past, religion provided many of the common values by reference to which conflicts of rights or interest were resolved. In the future, what will take its place? Our law still reflects many Christian values. If and when these are challenged, how is the challenge resolved”?

“We live in a pluralist society. By definition, that means that there is competition, not only when it comes to applying values, but also in identifying values. Everybody is aware that our society is rights-conscious. A rights-conscious society must also be values-conscious. If it is not, then we have no way of identifying those interests that are rights, or of resolving conflicts between them. Rights cannot work without values”.

Gleeson in reflecting on the Australian Constitution thought that “for a large part of the 20th century, was given a rights-based interpretation. That rights-based interpretation was later abandoned by the High Court, apparently with general approval”.

However the notion that no rights are absolute and the abandonment by the High Court of rights-based interpretations of constitutional provisions in favour of the variable, relative morality of Roman Catholic Law and Doctrine, where everything is judged on a case-by-case basis and decided where in the "basket of evils" the Greater Good lies and often expressed as a balancing process, was a gradual process of erosion that coincided with the stacking of the High Court with Roman Catholic Judges.

While the abandonment of a rights-based interpretation may have had the general approval of the Roman Catholic Judges sitting on the High Court, it did not have the general approval of the wider Australian community, who were never asked.

When the Roman Catholic Justice Sir Gerard Brennan spoke in Dietrich -v- The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 403, of “the relatively permanent values of the Australian Community”, he appeared to equate those relatively permanent values with the Roman Catholic values inherent in Roman Catholic Law and Doctrine.

Under Roman Catholic Law (imposed upon and subsuming Australian Law) the “End” (the imprisonment and conviction of an accused) is paramount and each and every “Means” however corrupt, unlawful, wrong, cruel, inhuman or unjust it may be, in itself, is justified and required in order to achieve the “End”.

The judgments of Justice Breyer, for due process and the Roman Catholic Justice Scalia for the Summum bonum, in the US Supreme Court decision in Hudson –v- Michigan 200 US 321 (15 June 2006) clearly outline the basis for, and the consequences of, the opposing foundations for justice. Roman Catholic Law and Doctrine is not just an Australian problem, but that this Strangler-Fig of Justice is an International virus.

Were the concept of due process of the law given its full effect and meaning, no conviction obtained by corrupt, unlawful, wrong, cruel, inhuman or unjust “Means” could survive the appeal process.

However, this is Australia, the land of ‘Kangaroo Justice’ perpetrated in ‘Kangaroo Courts’. Often Appellate Courts not enamoured with an argument will simply ignore it in the judgments as if it had never been posited, rather than accurately outline the submission and critically analyse it so that a clear foundation for its rejection can be found in the reasoning adopted in the decision.

A variation of that ‘Chameleon Rule’ [the law alters according to the background and circumstances of the case before the Court] is where the Court gives an inaccurate conspectus of the arguments, positing them as if they were ridiculous and without foundation, before dismissing them. The province of the intellectually dishonest and morally vacant.

So it is difficult to outline the arguments that were before the Court with any forensic precision, merely by reading the judgments of the Court.

Reading the judgments of the High Court in Dietrich, one could be forgiven for concluding that the case was about the right to a fair trial and the impact upon that right that the provision or otherwise of Defence Counsel may make.

The case for Dietrich was that there is an absolute Right to due process of the law and as an adjunct to that Right, a right to Counsel.

In harmony with the Summum bonum of Roman Catholic Law & Doctrine, the High Court found that in Australia there was no right to due process of the law and no right to Counsel. Had the High Court also found that Ollie Dietrich was clearly ‘guilty anyhow’, they would have dismissed the appeal and Australia would not have even the [small ‘r’] right to an adjournment.

My misguided efforts to ‘edit’ the original article in Wikipedia on Dietrich v The Queen arose from a desire to provide the curiosity seekers with the accurate conspectus of the arguments advanced for Ollie Dietrich and the foundation advanced for those arguments that was not provided in the article.

My attempts to ‘edit’ the later ‘comments’ made about Ollie Dietrich in the article also arose from a desire for accuracy. Such veracity as the truth provides can not be sourced merely from the newspaper articles cited. ‘Crime Fiction’ is a worthy pastime, but many of its authors merely recant what police, prosecutors and Judges say and in applying the ‘end justifies the means’, they would say anything, simply anything at all.

Perhaps because Ollie Dietrich remains a thorn in the side of those who believe no one should have any ‘Rights” but just ‘Responsibilities’ (by which name Roman Catholics call tyranny’) he has spent a substantial part of his adult life in gaol, surviving the Jika Jika fire only because he was in the visit section at the time. He spent more than 5 years on remand peine forte et adure before his last convictions on the murder and armed robbery counts that arose from an armed robbery at the Commonwealth Bank branch at North Blackburn Shopping Centre in 1985.

The convictions were not obtained by a rigorous attention to the truth. The appeal process has just commenced, but may yet prove to be another step in the war for due process of the law.

I do trust this was not too long a conribution for you.

116.250.91.42 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributions are welcome, although it may take a little time to become used to procedures here. Please note that your above comment "I accept that I am not the author of the original article and that I should not 'edit' the work of another" is very polite but is definitely not practice here. Anyone is welcome to edit, although their edits will eventually be removed by another volunteer if there is some problem. Common problems that are often not appreciated by newcomers are that all assertions must be verifiable with reliable sources because we do not accept expert testimony (it is not satisfactory for an editor to insert text on the basis that they know it to be true: that is original research, and because anyone can edit, we have to require the previously-mentioned verifiability). Given your connection with a party mentioned in the article, you should also bear WP:COI in mind. Having a conflict of interest is not "wrong", but it does mean that you should take care.

Your changes to Dietrich v The Queen were reverted because you left the article in an unfinished state. You can see that by visiting the page, then clicking "history" at the top. The history shows that Barek gave a detailed edit summary explaining that you should not chat in the article: instead, fix the article so it is a coherent whole, or discuss proposals or problems on the talk page. You go to the talk page by clicking "discussion" at the top of the article. For example, your article changes included text like "The preceding paragraph is confuted by the facts" which asserts that there is a problem in the preceding paragraph. You should explain the problem on the talk page, or fix the article (do not debate the article in the article).

Another point about your edits is that you may be introducing too much detail. There are parts of Wikipedia that can only be understood by experts (in some advanced mathematics articles, for example), but this article is intended for general access and should give an overview of the case and its implications, without a lot of legal argument. If appropriate, it would be reasonable (in good English) to say something like, "X says the case implies A [reference], but Y says it implies B [reference]". However, your text might have been an attempt to argue points, rather than to assert arguments concluded by reliable sources.

If you want to take this any further, please propose changes at Talk:Dietrich v The Queen, where you should address the points in my comment made on that page. If you have any general "how to" questions, you may like to reply here and ask. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear John Dear Barek

Whilst I note what you say, I nevertheless have a clear view that my critical analysis should remain part of the discussion. I have access to all of the transcripts of all of the Dietrich and Rich trials and appeals as well as access to the submissions made in all the matters [to many of which I contributed in the composition]. I could never compete with 'reliable sources' such as those cited in support of the original article, including: Silvester, John (10 June 2005). "Hugo Rich chose the low road". The Age. Retrieved 8 October 2007. Wilkinson, Geoff (6 March 2009). "Bandits fled in seconds". Herald Sun: p. 33. Wilkinson, Geoff (12 June 2009). "Hugo Rich guilty of security guard Erwin Kastenberger's murder". Herald Sun. Retrieved 13 November 2009.

I accept that "this article is intended for general access and should give an overview of the case and its implications, without a lot of legal argument". Accordingly, the 'crime fiction' perpetrated by the popular press is more appropriate, than forensic precision. The Wikipedia article might form the basis for the next 'Underbelly' book, a TV mini series perhaps.

Mark A Clarkson (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines

Actually, this was a response to another user. My post was on the Talk:Generations page. Why did you move it to my page? I actually posted something similar on the other user's page.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In these two edits you posted a new message at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. For some reason, lots of people post messages on that page, and if you look at its history you will see that a couple of such messages are deleted every day. I could see that your message was intended for another page, so I copied it to your talk to let you know that it had not been placed where you intended. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm so sorry. I don't know how that happened. Feel like an airhead now. Happy New Year. Let's all hope 2010 is better than 2009. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Monday

On my page, Jon Monday, there was a request to cite references. I added a link to allmusic.com, which is a standard music business reference site, where you can find credits from recordings, bio information about artists and producers, etc. However, the link I posted did not go all the way through to the page with my information. This should work better:

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=JON%7CMONDAY&sql=11:wcfqxqugld6e

I think this would serve as an independent reference/source. Could you please add this and remove the notice?

Thanks, Jon Ellis408 (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this later (probably within 24 hours), but meanwhile you might like to know that when creating a new section on a talk (discussion) page, you should click "new section" at the top of the page (do not click "edit this page"). Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have put a response at Talk:Jon Monday where I said that I tried to find a way to use the allmusic page, but it does not have any extra useful information. Sorry. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for review

Several months ago you made an edit to The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy. There is currently a dispute underway on the editing of the page and I'm wondering if you would be willing to review the matter and offer your perspective. Thanks Buz lightning (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I was at that article while checking what an editor had done with certain categories, but I have had a look and put a partial response at Talk:The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

an answer of sorts

I responded to the question you asked of me at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Conflicting_guidelines.3F, but perhaps not the answer you hoped. With respects, I am not myself asking about nor postulating eFilmCritic as a reliable source, only whether or not, specially considering the number of truely reliable sources that quote it or use its statistics, if it may be considered in certain circumstances under ELMAYBE as an external link that could provide a reader with unique information. Its use by the Wikipedia-determined reliable sources is indicative that it can provide unique information or knowledge toward a topic, much as IMDB (a non-RS acceptable as an EL). I do not believe that it itself will ever be accepted as RS because they accept reviews from non-experts and experts alike, and because they do not reveal their vetting processes, but just as with IMDB, I believe that its use as an EL respects the intent of ELMAYBE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I may later respond at WT:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding links to allmusic.com page about music credits for Jon Monday

Hi John,

In your post you said:

I was considering adding the following entry to external links: Biography at allmusic.com

However, WP:ELNO#1 indicates that (apart from an official site) a linked site needs to provide a unique resource (something more than what is, or should be, in the article). I haven't added the above entry because I can't see any extra useful information. I also tried to use the entry as a reference for some of the information in the article, however I was unable to do so because the article contains many more details and I cannot see an assertion in the article that would be verified by the allmusic site (half of some assertions would be verified, but it's not satisfactory to give a reference that does not fully verify a statement).

And the statement on my page asked for references or sources:

This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources.

I added the link to allmusic.com as a means to provide some references and sources. Allmusic.com (also known as All Music Guide) is a well-respected music industry reference site that is used by Amazon.com and other major commercial music distributors to license data for the music products they sell. Unlike Wikipedia, they do not allow users to enter data, but have staff editors who mostly take the data directly from liner notes, album credits, and information provided by record companies. They are so thorough that I found credits to albums I worked on that I had forgotten about (there are albums listed on my allmusic.com page that are not on my Wikipedia page).

If you click on the biography tab of the allmusic.com you can see a sketch of my music background, and the link I provided brings you to a page of my music credits. Since allmusic.com exclusively deals with music, it does not cover any information about my film production credits, or my career in Silicon Valley.

Aside from the production credits, much of my music business career can be traced through historical announcements in Billboard magazine: http://books.google.com/books?cd=4&as_pt=MAGAZINES&id=WBEEAAAAMBAJ&dq=%22jon+monday%22&q=%22jon+monday%22&as_coll2=+issn%3A0006-2510+

This include my being promoted to promotion manager at Takoma Records in the 5/20/72 issue, a 8/9/75 article on Takoma Records that mentions me as General Manager, in 1/30/82 my appointment as sales manager of Chrysalis Visual Programming, a 12/11/82 announcement that I was promoted to director of marketing for Chrysalis Records, and an article from 5/7/94 about MusicWriter, a company I co-founded with Larry Heller.

Then in the issue of CIO magazine there's an article on MusicWriter - with my picture and description of my role as President and the history of the company. http://books.google.com/books?id=bw0AAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=%22jon+monday%22&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22jon%20monday%22&f=false

A site called Access My Library has a good set of links to many articles about MusicWriter and my role as president and co-founder: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-8964963/manufacture-music-your-store.html

I don't mind linking to any of these articles, or none of them, but I would appreciate it if the label on my page can be removed that asks for references and sources.

Thanks,

Jon Ellis408 (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll contemplate this when I have some time. If you do not see a response before next Thursday feel free to remind me by editing this section. It doesn't matter, but FYI the normal procedure would be for you to post the above at the talk page of the article. Then if 24 hours went by with no response you might post on a user's talk page with a link to the article talk page, like this: [[Talk:Jon Monday]] which appears as Talk:Jon Monday. I will reply at the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Thanks for your message. Despite reverting your edit, I was glad someone pays attention to these things. I thought how to handle it at the time (here's a banned editor and another person making a good faith reversion), so I had a quick glance at the banned editor's recent contributions. At a glance, they seemed in context, so I thought 'oh well, may as well reinforce constructive behaviour'.

I subsequently had a closer look at some of that editor's recent edits, and I get a sense of the concern. E.g. inserting sentences which appear to be about getting a viewpoint across rather than contributing to the article. Or inserting a sentence which in and of itself seems not unreasonable, but that breaks up the flow of and meaning of a paragraph, etc. On this last instance, I myself have 'The Third Culture'. after prompting by an academic whose own discipline, if not herself, leans in favour of the Dawkins school of thought - in contrast to the motivation that seems behind the banned editor's instertion (hence my mention). And I do think it is worth at least listing in the Dawkins article, because it's part of the great 'debate' that captivated and indeed imfluenced many, especially while Gould was alive. But I wouldn't just deliberately chuck reference to it into the middle of a paragraph in such a fashion that it disrupts the entire context.

So I thank you for bearing with me, and in particular for your comment. This was a first for me (there's a few of those as Wotnow wantonly wanders wondrously, wearily wikibizzoing within Wikipedia). But I'll heed your advice in any future such situations. Wotnow (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Replied here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply acknowledged with thanks. Wotnow (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but by chance I noticed the AfD and have already commented. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. BTW, since your comments (and taking them into consideration), I've worked on the article and expanded the RS support/references.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bismarck and biting

Hi John. I think I remember you from Talk:Human. Thanks very much for your input at here. I agree with you that "we should proceed cautiously without biting too much" and I hope I succeeded in being firm without biting at all, both on that page and at the user's two talk pages. If you're interested, there's a short backstory (see this and my response to it) with elements that alarmed me somewhat, but I tried very hard to AGF and take a constructive, collaborative approach. What I found frustrating was either getting no response at all or responses that completely ignored my stated concerns. If you think I was too harsh at any point, I'd really appreciate your telling me. I wouldn't want to scare off a newcomer, and while I think I was civil and then some, my own perspective may be skewed. Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen the user's page. When I commented at the RFC, I had intended to commend your messages on the user's talk page, but I'm afraid I forgot... You were definitely not too harsh. The user doesn't seem to appreciate that we would like to discuss the issues, and while they superficially commented it looks like they aren't going to engage, and there is not much we can do about it. That's a shame but I think you did all that is reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence. Especially because the saga continues. Rivertorch (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a section at User talk:Global.Geo.Historic.Data#Editing procedures. We'll see if we can make contact. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Kosovo relations

This article has been renominated for deletion by User:LibStar. Since you took the time to comment in the first discussion, you deserve to be notified of the situation. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. My opinion has not changed, but I don't have the heart to comment at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help.Snowleopard100 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPA

I have edited the essay on SPAs. As it stood the identifying SPAs ran like a long dialog that had nothing to do with the title "identifying SPAs". I did not delete anything, but added a new subsection above it addressing identification more specifically. The common misuses section lists misuses specified in the 2009 discussions that did not seem to be disagreed with (except the user page one was not brought up, but thats probably because it is so obvious). Anyways I want to make sure the essay stays neutral so I am asking members who made comments on the talk page to review the changes and make suggestions on the talk page. There is also a discussion of potential other misuses that could be added to the list but are slightly more controversial, and hence I did not add them immediately, but rather am looking for consensus first.MATThematical (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I commented at WT:Single-purpose account. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sig

You may wish to fix it over at the Pr77 thread on ANI. This message is in case you have yet to see my message there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Eeek, I fixed it. Thanks, don't know how I missed my broken signature. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing EInsiders.com references

Do you know a way to automatically remove these references (circa 213 count), pursuant to our conversation here? 842U (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is no automated method for a case like this. I have dealt with some spam cases where one just manually edits each page in a list (using the user's contributions, or Special:LinkSearch). A fair bit of care is needed to not cause damage. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A reply to your questions has been made on the reliable sources page. Pharaway (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

?

Please, I do not even know whom you are. WikiLove is both allowed and encouraged here on wikipedia...how did you even know who I am, did someone I smiled at report me or something? I am just sending them messages, no more, I'm sorry, but don't you have better things to do than bother ordinary users like me? thanks, and, please, there is no need to respond; I do not wish to waste your time further when you could be using it to add more information to Wikipedia about evolution patterns and other topics you are interested in. Have a great day! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to make this a social networking site, to equate my actions with Facebook is just strange and confusing. I do not think this is an offense at all, much less a serious one. please, can you just leave me alone? just try (for once) to assume good faith, okay? I'm just trying to cheer random people up. I will of course be far more careful after this warning, unexpected though it was. Celestialwarden11 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you were not offended by my message on your talk page. It seemed reasonable to ask why you created User talk:Babysnow when that user has not edited since December 2008 (and only ever edited their user page). Some people like receiving wikilove boxes from people they have not interacted with, but it is probably best to not award a barnstar unless you have noticed a reason for such an award (that is, some improvement to the encyclopedia). Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your implication, being, you have not improved the encyclopedia? Well, I will keep my own thoughts about you to myself, but perhaps such an assumption is reasonable if you yourself insist it so..."Insincere and misguided?" What is with you? Please, go to an admin if you find the Wikismile or barnstar offensive, but don't waste my time by pretending to care about "offending" me. Look, I'm sorry, but you started this whole conversation. It might be best, personally, if we drop this whole thing, all right? thanks. Celestialwarden11 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have caused you concern – that was not intended, and I do care. Perhaps my original message was worded a little harshly, although I contend that simply reading the words at face value shows that the text was quite in keeping with many talk page messages. I guess I'm a bit sensitive about awarding barnstars because whereas I have done quite a lot to help here, I am acutely aware that the sum of my contributions is pretty trivial compared with those from hundreds of others editors. My personal feeling is that it would be best to have a reason for awarding a barnstar (apart from a belief that it would cheer up the recipient). It might cheapen the award for genuinely deserving recipients if too many are handed out. However, at no time have I suggested that my opinions are more than simply my opinions, and I present them only for your consideration. I agree that dropping the conversation would be best, but you are welcome to add your thoughts if you like. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, okay, Johnuniq, I get it...I'll be more careful. Maybe a few WikiSmiles, once in a while, though, can't hurt? Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

warning

I have been warned and must pass on this warning to you.

Barack Obama article editing must be done precisely correct or sanctions are possible. If you read the reference cited, you will see that Bo, the dog, is a gift to Malia and Sasha, not Barack. This is not my opinion, but reported by the New York Times. Also note that there was a discussion and trivial things, this thing specifically, was deemed to be not mentionable. It was as unsuited for the article as the swearing in oath two times. In most articles, slack is allowed to insert trivia but not this article. Sorry about that. JB50000 (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC) You are mentioned on the Obama general sanctions board but I asked that you receive counseling, not block, because I am a nice person. JB50000 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and please do not worry because I am well aware of the sanctions and am not at all concerned because there is zero chance that I will go anywhere near breaching the very reasonable requirements. My single edit had a polite and accurate edit summary ("Undid revision 345177059 by JB50000 (talk) reliable source shows it is not false; only 9 words + ref; item has an article so it's not trivial") and was simply restoring material that is well established in the article, and well sourced. Likewise I am not at all concerned by your mentioning "block" because by temperament it is extremely unlikely that I will ever get drawn into a conflict. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

obamabreak

I have written to an uninvolved editor. I will lay off Obama related pages for 36 hours and probably longer. Longer if you agree to do the same, maybe for half a week. This would be a show of cooperation. 05:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

I wonder if you intend your comment for someone else? I have edited Barack Obama only once ever, and have a total of 8 edits on Talk:Barack Obama. You may be interested to know that you have edited Barack Obama 38 times, and Talk:Barack Obama 103 times in the last three months. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Barry Lynn and Child Pornography

When he was employed by the ACLU, Lynn worked on First Amendment issues, and how they related to censorship and pornography. See these references in Google Books Though conservative, this book cites Lynn's testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s that the constitution also protecs child pornography. The book's source is the congressional record. It seems it cited his 1986 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommitte on juvenile justice. His report on the Meese Commission report on pornography see the first book, his, on the list, affirms the ACLU's view (during the mid-1980s) that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the Constiution. Clearly, his comments in the Firing Line debate, which you do not dispute, are hardly an isolated example of his belief that the Constitution protects the distribution of child pornography.JohnScott2 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a duplicate of what you posted at Talk:Barry W. Lynn#Views on Child Pornography. I will reply there. In general, you should not need to alert an editor when you have commented at an article talk page, although if you felt (after a few days) that the editor may have missed the comment you might like to add a link to the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits, reasoning?

I'm adding links on people and companies that are in the fashion industry that have official profiles with credits on MyFDB.com. The web site there acts exactly like IMDB (of which, links are all over wikipedia and accepted) just for the fashion industry. The fashion model database which is less credited and less comprehensive has their own built in wiki syntax. MyFDB.com also verifies their users and those users (models, photographers etc..) verify their credits and this is all information that is not on any of these wikipedia pages. The site credits fashion workers for their work and attaches those credits to the images. From the external links guidelines:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

The links I've added fit very nicely within this description form the External Links guidelines wikipedia editors should abide by. I feel like all the links I've added are appropriate and they're being reverted without a proper evaluation. Can we work on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.193.152 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is always a problem when someone adds several links to a site because there are lots of people who try to add links for promotion every day (and someone focusing on adding links to a site may have a WP:COI issue). The best procedure might be to pick, say, two articles and create a new section on the talk page where you show what you think should be added and invite comments. I have raised the issue at WP:ELN#myfdb.com where I hope other editors will comment (and your comments would be welcome there). Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand how red flags come up with strings of edits like mine, totally. The site MyFDB get's content from in house fashion professionals who enter the credits and images, whose sole job is to know the people of the industry and to verify their involvement in the work posted. MyFDB is also beginning to verify professionals via their representation (agents) or directly with the person themselves. Right now it's the largest (with nearly 1M images) and most authoritative and accurate database of fashion pros and their work online. I thought it'd be the perfect candidate rather than some other fashion sites. Thoughts? It's IMDB for fashion, basically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.193.152 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 March 2010

You should make this comment at WP:ELN#myfdb.com. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Time-further-out

Hi Johnuniq. This user has not stopped. In fact they escalated their incivilities and aggressive attitude diff. I informed Ckatz but I would appreciate any suggestions/assistance regardless. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

While possibly irritating I think the best thing is to leave the issue for 48 hours. The user is not the normal spammer, but is an articulate person puzzled about why we can't see how useful the link is, so letting them have the last word is fine. I wouldn't even worry about promptly reverting any further additions since proceeding calmly and slowly works best in the long run. Sorry that you've had to do most of the back-and-forth and take the criticism. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I don't mind good faith criticism but this person specializes in personal attacks and taunting, i.e. trolling. Anyway currently the consensus is against adding the EL so I don't think such a move, as you describe is possible. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your message

OK. Since you are doubting that his edits are vandalism or not, I'll be staying out of the article for the next 24 hours. Let the other users give their opinion and handle this issue. Thanks for noticing anyway. Axxn (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. You will notice that I reverted the user at Nair and the user really is over the line for a report at WP:AN/EW. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Nair page

Dear Johnuniq, thank you for the information regarding edit war in Nair page. In that page it is stated that Nairs are Malayala Kshatriyas. The terminology Malayala Kshatriya itself is a new one, you may find it only in wikipedia. Not in Britannica or other encyclopedias. The term Malayala Kshatriya itslef is fake. So I want to edit it. I tried to make the article neutral by stating that this is only a claim. But it got reverted soon. I asked a many times to the user Anand Krishnan to discuss on this matter. But without any discussion, he continued reverting. Now I noticed that he had maid the a comment in your talk page saying that he will be staying out of the article for the next 24 hours. Let the other users give their opinion and handle this issue. But the major problem is that a majority of editors from Kerala are nairs, and they will prefer the Kshatriya status (eventhough it has no meaning now a days). The truth is far behind than the opinion of majority. A nair can claim Kshathriya status because of his martial history. But all nairs are not Kshatriyas. There are different sub-sects which cannot claim such a status. All these factors should be mentioned in the article. The references provided in the article are also biased ones. Even if I make a discussion, the majority can quote too many such references and argue. Unless I get succeed the falls message will remain in the article (It will be very difficult to get a consensus among the editors of nair page). Is that you want? Presently the article is not neutral. What one can do in such a situation? Should we adopt the wish/opinion of a majority as truth? I wish to proceed with my editing. Please give reply in my talk page. Thank you. Snnair (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a detailed explanation and not repeating the change in Nair. Please understand that content disputes are very common and the only way to proceed is to patiently make your case on the talk page of the article (Talk:Nair). Because "anyone can edit", one of the very firm rules on Wikipedia is that edit wars are prohibited: it is unacceptable to argue by repeating changes to an article (and everyone involved in such a case, when not covered by one of the exceptions mentioned at that link, are usually blocked for 24 hours initially, with longer blocks if repeated). I am mentioning this because your contributions indicate that you have been an editor for one day, although you seem to be fairly aware of how the system works. The information that you want to change appears to have been in the article for some time, and there does not appear to be an urgent need to implement your changes. Accordingly, you should calmly explain why the current text is unsatisfactory and why changes are needed at the article talk page. If, say, a few days of intermittent discussion do not resolve the issue, you can investigate dispute resolution. If you want my opinion on a procedural matter, please ask, but I have no expertise in the subject of the article and am unlikely to be much use with the content. Ultimately, material on Wikipedia is retained if it can be verified by reliable sources. Material which cannot be verified should be removed as a breach of no original research (but you need consensus to do that, possibly after dispute resolution). Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The falls claim in the Nair page stating that Nair are Kshatriyas, not Sudras continues there in the article for more than two years. I tried to explain a number of times. Since the majority of editors are Nairs, they doesn't want to reveal the truth. I am not an editor for one day. This is a new identity created by me. The information that I wanted to change have been there in the article for more than two years. But that information is wrong. The editors wishes to propagate that wrong message. They will not allow anything against it. Atleast making the article neutral is not allowed. So there is an urgent need to implement my changes. You may not have expertise in the subject, but I request you to go through the content, arguments in the talk page etc. and give your opinion. It may be surprising for you that the reference quoted in the article now itslef clearly states that all nairs are not khstriyas. In the Malabar Manual by William Logan (note: It is already there in the refernce list of Nair page) the term nayar is used almost as a synonym with term Sudra. (See page 92., page 239), and page 542.). But the article claims that Nairs are Kshatriyas not Sudras. Such a false claim started from the beginning of the birth of the article and still continues. A lot of readers alreaded started believing this also. So there is an URGENT need of correction. The present editors will not allow such a change. They will continue reversion. Also I wish to bring the fact that the term Malayala Kshatriya is coined by wikipedians only. This is a fake terminology. Keralites never used such a term to denote caste. Anyway from now onwards I will proceed with editing in talk page. I hope you can do something in making the article neutral. Please take this as urgent. Thank you Snnair (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly concerned, yet the editors with a different opinion also have strong views. It is simply impossible in such a situation for anything to happen quickly. I strongly recommend that you express yourself calmly and do not suggest that the matter is "urgent", because that is one point that uninformed onlookers can see is wrong (there are some errors that need urgent correction in Wikipedia, mainly concerned with potential libel regarding living people, but a possible error in Nair is not urgent). While the issue in question may be important or even urgent to you, I am afraid that it does not have the same significance to other editors (if you look at WP:ANI you will see reports of many disputes everyday). I cannot get involved in the content dispute because of the difficulty of an outsider trying to understand the issues. Perhaps you could make a user subpage like User:Snnair/Nair and on that page make a section with the part of the current text that you want to remove, including any references. Then explain what the problem with the current text is. You could have another section with what you think the text should be, with some references and explanations. Link to your text from the article talk page, and investigate the options at WP:DR. I did have a quick look at the links in your above message, but for some reason each shows me the cover of a book rather than the particular page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to summarize a few things before moving this section to the Nair talk page.

• By his own admission User:X has been indulging in vandalism on Nair article for the past 2 years by committing edit-war, POV pushing, name calling, adding defamatory information and section blanking.

• Not satisfied with the results with his own original user account, User:X creates a sock puppet to use exclusively for vandalizing the Nair related articles

• User:X tried to cheat other users by naming his sock "Snnair", threby trying to give an impression that he is a Nair (although we know from his last 2 years of editing that he is an Ezhava.

• Immediately after creating his sock account, User:X tries to vandalize the Nair article by indulging in adding defamatory POV and removing well sourced paragraphs.

• His sole aim for the last 2 years has been to slander the Nairs as "Sudra" ( a highly derogatory term, which if used in public would land the offender in prison). The colonial POV which he is siting is irrelevant and biased as can be seen from the consensus reached on the talk pages. For example, in the Judaism article, no one will add that "Jews were also known as Kik*s". Like this in the African-American page, no one will add that "African Americans are Negroes" just because they were known as such during the 19th century.

• The points which he is repeatedly pointing out has been discussed in detail in the past, as can be seen from the archives on the talk page. But User:X has been unwilling to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

• The amount of abuse he is hurling at the Nair community is inflaming racial tensions and I sincerely advice User:X to target a particular ethnic group just because he does not like them.

There fore these are my suggestions to User:X -

• You can create a user subpage and fill it with whatever pejoratives and vulgarities you like. You can read the "enlightened" article after every 5 minutes and get multiple orgasms by going through it.

• You can concentrate more on articles related to your own ethnic group and stop targeting other ethnic groups.

Thanks. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually he is saying something like this - "I am trying to slander Nair article for the last 2 years, but has been unsuccessful so far, since the Nairs got angry at the BS hurled towards them and reverted my edits. So please allow me to add some X rated information in the Nair page and tell the Nairs to stay out of the article about their ethnic group." Shannon1488 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the broader perspective. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq, the findings by user Suresh Varma is wrong. Here he is referring me as a particular user - he calls him User:X. But, frankly, I am not that person. I haven't made any purposeful attempt as he is saying. User Suresh Varma says "User:X tried to cheat other users by naming his sock "Snnair"". But I am not the User X referred by him. I don't know the way to prove my identity in such a case. And about the term "Sudra", the user Suresh varma says that "it is a highly derogatory term, which if used in public would land the offender in prison". The same tame is used in the refernece that I have cited (i.e. The Malabar Manual by Monier Williams) and this term is in use from very long ago. The term Sudra refers to one of the very old classification system in India. In India the society was classified in to four Classes/Castes referred as Varnas - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra - based on the profession. In the later period, the criteria of classification became birth i.e., if one is son/daughter of a Vaishya, he/she will also a Vaishya.. like that. I havent used any derogatory term. The term Shudra is used in India from very old days - from the time of Manusmriti. Sudra is the term used for denoting the working class . The only thing what I wanted to emphasise with my editing "Nairs are Kshtriya" is is not a widely accepted claim. It is under debate. Some say Nairs are Kshatriyas while some others say Nairs are Shudras. In such a situation, in my opinion, it is irrelevent in the first defenition saying that Nair is Kshthriya. If we are stating like that we should consider the opposite argument also. However, from now onwards I am not going to edit the Nair article. Let it be like that. However, I strongly believe, being an encyclopedia, wikipedia should clearly indicate the real situation Snnair (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very well expressed comment, thank you. Unfortunately, I do not have the background to offer an opinion on the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet Meme

Please, if you wish, enlighten me as to why you don't believe that Encyclopedia Dramatica has a focus on memes. It is most probably chalked up to a personal vendetta against the site. Do you have a page against it? Or have you been banned on it? Lousit (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Very witty, friend. Now if only your editings were up to snuff. I edit at Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I teach you english, wording, the arts of being funny, and wikicode if you'd like. Lousit (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You have already strongly commented at Talk:Internet meme (the correct place). There is no need for us to discuss the matter here. As a new user you may not be aware that the approach here is very different from most Internet forums, and you should look through WP:CIVIL to avoid problems. I will mention in reply to your comment above that I said that our ED article does not indicate a focus on memes; I made no comment about the actual site (other than saying that I have nothing against it, only against its promotion here).

I guess your second comment (I got an edit conflict) is in relation to the welcome. Sorry if it looked as if I were making some point – it really is standard here for such a thing, and many established editors would think it inappropriate for me to talk with a new user without welcoming them. Really, I assure that I have nothing against ED, and I was definitely not attempting to make a point or be humorous. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's a shame. There's something wrong with you ED article....you might want to fix it. I could do it for you, if you'd like. Lousit (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are welcome to improve any article, however you may find some problems: I think there is a filter that prevents creating links to ED (because of extensive abuse by people adding ED links in many places). Also, per our verifiability policy, all information is supposed to supported by at least one reliable source, preferably a secondary source. Of course it can be very difficult to find such sources regarding many Internet sites, so you may find adding information frustrating. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for my doubts, but your 'policies' are somewhat flawed. ED would be a wonderful place to source things about ED, but if I can't link to ED, how can I? Maybe there should be a bit of knowledge in the sysop team. I guess I'll just have to talk to them and get it changed myself. Hell, I'll even use lawyers if they don't comply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lousit (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, As a newish editor, I'm willing to admit I've got a lot to learn. That being said, if you have the time, take a look at [1]. I noticed your quest against WP:SPAM and thought the whole issue might have some relevance. I've tried to assume good faith around here, but the personal attacks from this guy are getting spooky. With phrases like "I'm going to find out who you are" and "I'm watching you" I can understand why one editor (who saw his share of threats via the COI board) retired. But I'm not going to be bullied, although my wife, ever the level-headed woman, suggests I get out of dodge because she figures this guy hires a private investigator or worse... Jim Steele (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I regret that you were brought into this by JimSteele9999. I never said either of the things he put in quotes and anyone who reviews the record will find that that is a gross mischaracterization. JimSteele9999 has only been on Wiki since late last year and during that short time he has been blocked from Wiki for being a sockpuppet and he has had warnings from several editors about his behavior. I am relatively knew to Wiki and do not understand his repeated personal attacks against me and his false and misleading posts about me. JAWW123 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jim Steele: If an editor says "I'm watching you" that may tend towards a breach of WP:CIVIL, although it would depend on context because it is very reasonable to monitor the contributions of another editor if you think you need to check whether all Wikipedia procedures are being properly followed. However, it is hard to regard "I'm going to find out who you are" as anything other than a breach of WP:NPA and I imagine there would be many admins who would want to investigate the context and possibly issue a very firm warning. However, a quick scan of the page you linked (User talk:Atama) and your own talk page failed to find words like that. I see from Atama's talk that there is some strong disagreement, but it would be too hard for me to work out what is the central issue. However, if you care to more closely identify where text like "find out who you are" occurs I will have another look. If you provide a link to one or two articles I will watch future edits and may be able to join in with my views.

@JAWW123: I have no idea what the dispute is about, but thank you for alerting me. Given what I have just said, it is perhaps premature to make any comment, but I will say that looking at Special:Contributions/Jimsteele9999 shows that Jimsteele9999 should use edit summaries more often, but the summaries used are civil and helpful. Considering Special:Contributions/JAWW123 it might be useful to remember that WP:CIVIL is a very strong requirement and applies to all interaction at Wikipedia; I suggest that CIVIL is particularly important in edit summaries because they cannot be withdrawn if further information is revealed that supports a different conclusion. The first thing that any third-party investigation of a dispute would notice is that some of your edit summaries are inappropriate for Wikipedia (even if the underlying claim in the summary were found to be correct).

A general comment: It is very important to be accurate when a dispute occurs. If words are put in quote marks, those words had better exist exactly as quoted. In the same way, to claim that a user has been blocked as a sockpuppet had better be true not just in a technical sense but in a way that would be confirmed by common sense (JimSteele9999 has just posted on my talk page, so clearly he is not blocked, and his block log shows that the user was blocked for 17 hours before being unblocked by an extremely reliable admin, thus the "blocked" assertion is not accurate). Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful advice and direction. I wish to assure you again that I never said anything like what JimSteele9999 put in quotes. I sincerely hope you will warn him about putting comments in quotes that cannot be found anywhere on Wiki. It is a particularly malicious form of editing, in my opinion.

JAWW123 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I appreciate your time on this. Posted on our talk page because of your comments on the COI. What concerns me is that back then you had suggested, as you did above, JAW123 focus on the issue on not discuss other editors. I really do believe the page in question violates WP:SPAM Since your comments on the COI board it goes without saying that me, Ol' Jim, is the bulk of his focus. I think if we don't have WP:CIVIL and neglect WP:NPA there's not much good we can do here. I've tolerated JAW123's innapropriate edit summaries back when this started, but by now he seems privvy to the policies around here, or at least the ones he can apply to me! I'm still going to assume GF and am glad to hear my edits are helpful and civil.

There's quite a mess going on, and somewhere at some point JAW123 thought it best to try to connect dots, some in front of him, some not. These dots are personal, camera obscura, in nature and seem to be a bit of an obsession with him. That being said, in his quest he's threatened legal action, postulated the employment of this writer and his location. Again, since he is new I am going to still assume good faith, and I look at what I posted on his userpage as kind of guidance. I was reaching out, as best as a cantakerous old fart like myself can, and that didn't work. I thought it best for us to discuss this on, say, his userpage. What was I thinking? Instead, he still misuses above terms like "blocked" to defame me, suggesting I "have been warned by several editors while also bringing up event that happened months ago. I think a third party will find that, beyond the mudslinging the edits, edit summaries and subsequent comments speak for themselves...

Jim Steele (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1. No one tried to out anyone. It was on JimSteele9999's user page. Atama called him out on this as well after he lied to her on her user talk page.

2. If you read the comments corner to corner on Atama's user talk page, you will see the rest of what JimSteele9999 says above is also untrue.

3. Notice he never apologized nor backed up what he put in quotes yesterday. I'm confident you noticed this.

JAWW123 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick scan of User talk:Atama suggests that Jimsteele9999 may have a couple of questions to answer (suggestion: if you have said something that you can't justify and do not want to retract, just drop it; never refer to it again, and stay squeaky clean). However, a scan of Atama's talk and the above shows that JAWW123 just does not understand what WP:CIVIL is saying. Let me spell it out: Stop being uncivil. If you are submitting evidence somewhere like WP:RFCC you might suggest that a user has lied (although you should find more civil ways to express your opinion). But we simply do not say "SomeUser lied" on various talk pages. Anyone who does not understand that, should not be at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack's site

You earlier participated in this discussion, is there any chance you could return and give your view on the site's reliability now that BlackJack has given his lengthy evidence. Thank you. --88.111.52.213 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ecco_Pro. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks – tedious, but needs to be handled. I have commented at WP:ANI#Ecco Pro. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I responded. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Narayana Engineering College

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a comment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

COI Awareness

Hello, Sir, and thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

A few weeks ago, you responded to an inquiry by Masem regarding a friend who wished to update entries on behalf of his company, while respecting WP policies and acting transparently and ethically. I am that friend, and I am an employee of Aeria Games and Entertainment.

Allow me to first apologize with regards to previous edits made from other representatives of Aeria. I've spent the last few days reviewing our article history, and I've seen some of the edits made by other Aeria employees, and the escalating edit wars that have ensued. These editors have been reprimanded; I intend to put a stop to this type of behavior immediately, and while you may have no reason to trust it, I nonetheless offer you my pledge that I feel extremely strong about keeping these edits reasonable, fair, and as unbiased as possible. It is not my intent to use WP as a free marketing tool, nor to put a positive "spin" on anything regarding my company. My goal is simple: When WP readers come upon articles related to Aeria Games on WP, I want for the information contained there to be accurate and up-to-date.

As part of what Aeria has tasked me with, my hope is to complete these goals in two ways.

1: As a company whose business is the publishing and management of online games, we are frequently a target of retribution and/or vandalism from users who feel they have been treated unfairly (e.g. banned, suspended, etc.). One need only glance at the history of our company article to see many examples of malicious edits to our WP page. I intend to keep a watch on these articles and reverse flagrant attacks. I do not intend to block any and all criticism, allowing for criticism that is notable and reasonable.

2: I wish to make minor changes to some of our vital statistics and add salient details to some of the thinner articles regarding our company and its games, as well as make corrections where it is necessary to do so. For example, our main article states a "recent" foray into European markets; we have since also ventured into South American localization; our article linked to the Namco development team known as "Wolf Team" rather than the "WolfTeam" game that we publish (I have already made this change). These edits will be done with complete neutrality, stating only fact and not opinion (e.g. "Wolf Team can be played by up to 16 players" and not "Wolf Team offers fast-paced, exciting squad combat").

Masem suggested to me that I approach you with my intents and consult you as to proper procedure. I look forward to working with you on this effort, and I will respect your suggestions and wishes, deferring to you when in doubt. Thank you for your time and assistance. ZachAnd (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi ZachAnd. I will be glad to offer whatever assistance I can. The first and really vital point to make is that you will get abuse from other users from time to time, and you must remain calm. If someone adds serious libel to an article (not "this sucks", but a statement like "the CEO Mr Smith is a crook") you can revert it several times. However, material like "this game causes some computers to crash" should only be reverted if the statement is unreferenced (no reliable source), and must not be reverted more than once or twice in a 24 hour period (and given your COI, you should not revert material more than once or twice a week). For persistent and ongoing serious vandalism or libel, add a report at WP:AIV (but you must comply with the message at the top of that page). For less serious problems, simply wait: perhaps someone else will revert the problem edit within the next day or so. If that does not happen, leave a message for me here or contact Masem. I will watch Aeria Games and Entertainment and will probably notice disputes within a couple of days. I see from the history of the article talk page that some drama has occurred: that must not happen (few things irritate experienced editors more than silly back-and-forth, particularly when COI is involved).

Please spend quite a lot of time reading the various policy and guidelines pages: WP:5P gives an overview and a good idea of general concepts; WP:CIVIL spells out that we should almost never talk about editors ("user X is obnoxious"), instead talk about edits ("user X repeatedly makes changes to the article that are not supported by sources"); WP:COI discusses conflict of interest; WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS explain how material should be presented; WP:V specifies that statements of fact must be verifiable (and generally should be sourced with a reference to a secondary source). There is no need to master all this stuff; however, if you properly read it you will become familiar with the approach that should be used here. Do not worry about making mistakes (the only thing you could do that is definitely wrong would be to participate in a heated dispute – if you're not sure what to do next, just do nothing).

What you say is reasonable, however it sounds as if you intend being present on Wikipedia for an extended period, so I think you should make a user page (click the red "ZachAnd" in your signature; enter some wikitext; click "Show preview" to check) where you briefly say that the Aeria company are employing you to update their articles, and you will comply with the WP:COI policy. If you like, you could mention that you are working with an independent editor for guidance. You could include links as in the following paragraph (click "edit" to copy the wikitext for these, if you want to use them; close the browser window to cancel; change the wording however you like):

An independent editor (Johnuniq) has agreed to act as a mentor, as arranged here (permanent link).

I will have a look at the article and your edits from time to time, and may have suggestions. Ask any questions that you like, and good luck. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response and your helpful advice! I intend to start my edits later this week, and I will keep a lookout here and on the pages in question for further tips and information. I look forward to working with you! ZachAnd (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

THH 'views'

re 'views' discussion: I have reinstated in the two places advised by Rusty. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! Thanks for the alert. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

you don't want opposition to BIASED facts. n'est-ce pas? we still have NPOV here don't we or have we lost our first amendment? Furtive admirer (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The above relates to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and enthusiastic editing in May 2010. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the editor in question, Furtive admirer, is now indefinitely blocked from further editing here.[2] - Wikidemon (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and thanks to the blocking admin. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone - new version

You commented recently on some BLP issues concerning Richard Goldstone. I've written a considerably expanded and improved version of the article in my userspace at User:ChrisO/Goldstone. If you have any comments about this new version before it gets transferred into article space, please feel free to comment at Talk:Richard Goldstone#New version. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have posted a comment and am watching both articles (Goldstone and your draft). Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonactive ANI incident auto archived - what happens?

Hello I am wondering if you or someone else is still investigating this: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Request for block of User:G8crash3r for continued reinsertion of unsourced content despite numerous warnings

or if User:G8crash3r will go away with the understanding that it is OK to call other editors racists and unintelligent and insert gobs of unsourced content into articles? Active Banana (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any background in articles like this (and btw I am not an administrator). My instinct tells me that the long list of channels and some other wording in the article are not appropriate, but I do not know of any guideline or normal practice. I would have reverted the last edit which reinserted all the gumph except for the fact that I just have no idea about the long list of channels. I am watching the article and would be very happy to remove language such as I mentioned in my ANI comment. The editor has been determined, but ANI deals with more extreme forms of abuse and I'm sorry that I don't think you are going to get more help there – you would need specific diffs showing a series (not just one or two) of clear incivility, or a couple of very clear attacks, or you would need a clearer policy basis. It's frustrating, and that's why I run a mile from debating articles on bands and many other ultra-lightweight entertainment topics. Standard approaches would be to ask at the wikiproject listed on the article's talk page, or at WP:THIRD. I suspect that neither of those would be particularly helpful. I have given a long reply (despite it being unhelpful) because I thought your arguments at ANI were very persuasive, so I'm sorry that I can't really do anything. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply! Active Banana (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone

You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

• In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the Richard Goldstone article over the past couple of weeks.

You might be interested to know that Jimbo Wales himself has weighed in; he agrees that the disputed material should not be included [3]. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although you have done all the heavy lifting! Thanks also for the link, but I have a bad habit of lurking in various places to see what's going on, and I had noticed Jimbo's insightful contribution. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Re: [4].

Please discuss this on the talk page rather than simply reverting properly sourced material. It would be helpful if you would discuss this first rather than disrupting on-going updates to that page. --ClimateOracle (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/ClimateOracle. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way is that significant to the changes made to the William M. Connolley BLP as determined by standing community policies? I have rebutted your concerns (from the edit summary) on the talk page. --ClimateOracle (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations from Domthedude001 (talk · contribs); response on my talkpage

You may be interested in User_talk:Mono#Sockpuppet_accusations_from_.7B.7BUser.7CDomthedude001.7D.7D and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Domthedude001/ee_(2nd_nomination)#User:Domthedude001.2Fee. Thanks, mono 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented on your talk. An understandable if misguided reaction. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

QuickBooks - MikeBlockCPA

I might wish you did not revert my QuickBooks change, but understand and respect why you did. Thank you for taking the time to provide your explanation.MikeBlockCPA (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal Advice - Sagan's Indigo

You did suggest it would be wiser to drop the issue. My problem with that are the ethical issues, as you realize. Even though what I want to say is not finished, in the NoticeBoard page you told me to move my discussion to, and my writing being pretty long winded (to make sure I am being clear in what I say), would you take a look at what I have already written and give me an opinion? Thx in advance. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be hard to get agreement with your use of the source to support a generic statement about how Carl Sagan is regarded by the generation raised in the 1970s/1980s. However, I'm happy to suggest how you might proceed to look for that agreement (edit this section to see the wikitext, then close the browser window to cancel the edit). There is already a response at WP:RSN requesting a clarification which is very understandable because people at a general noticeboard will have no idea of what the issue concerns (and little motivation to investigate).

You need to provide a brief summary of exactly what the issue is: In article Carl Sagan you believe that this edit to add "He remains a figure of reference for the generation growing up in the late 1970s, early 1980s." is justified by this reference. You believe the reference is reliable because [brief summary of your statement]. Note that our opinion of what "reliable" means is not relevant; what counts is the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline – any arguments about "reliability" need to be couched in language based on those sources.

I think the biggest hurdle to overcome in order to have your edit accepted is what I mentioned on the article's talk page: the source does not use any language that directly leads to the text you wanted to add. In other words, an editor wanting to verify the information in the source has to interpret the source to reach your conclusion. The problem is that such interpretation violates no original research (an extremely important policy which prevents enthusiastic editors from adding whater nonsense they like after claiming that the source implies what they added to an article; note that I am talking about real nonsense, not related to your edits). My advice would be to drop the issue, but if you want to pursue it, my second advice would be to look for information in the source that could be added without requiring any interpretation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I ended up not using your wikitext because DVdm put in the information for me. Thanks anyway. On related business, I went to leave a message in DVdm Talk page and found quite a number of people complaining about reverts justified with technicalities but no specifics, that DVdm then brags for user block. As this seems very familiar, at this point I wonder if DVdm is acting in good faith. And maybe this comment is improper, I don't know. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a very quick look at User talk:DVdm and I think you are misinterpreting what you see. It is extremely common for people to not understand how Wikipedia works – they figure out the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" part, but they don't see the corollary that someone with a better grasp of Wikipedia's procedures can also remove their edit. There are quite a lot of good editors who work in troublesome areas like removing spam links to external websites, or removing original research or plain nonsense from physics articles (there is a lot of each of these problems). Such editors attract a steady stream of complaints, usually from people with a very poor understanding of Wikipedia's policies (see WP:5P and its links for a good start), but sometimes from other good editors who see some form of dispute and make certain incorrect assumptions (they don't take the time to work out the background to whatever they are complaining about). In brief, experienced editors are very used to pages like User talk:DVdm and would, subject to some very unexpected evidence to the contrary, assume the editor is doing a great job.

May I suggest that you ask questions rather than make assertions because your contributions are welcome but you need to learn how things operate here (btw please see WP:TP for details like indenting replies on a talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on DVdm Talk page. About indenting, I have been using it when distinction between different speakers is required. I will examine WP:TP. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am writing in IAR Talk page, but it seems like a wild goose chase because the page is visited very infrequently. Please if you want to make a comment right now use my talk page, so you won't disrupt what I am writing. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please drop the disagreement and later reflect on the views that others have expressed. I am not going to enter a debate, but I will say that the wording you wanted to introduce to Carl Sagan was a generalized statement (regarding how a generation regarded Sagan), and your wording had to be inferred from the source because it was not what the source said. By contrast, when you removed a sourced fact (in Inertia coupling in this edit), the fact is something that any physicist could verify, and it is obvious that you are simply removing the text to make a POINT. That is bad – please work on something else. Also, please reflect on the number of kooks that are present on the Internet: what do you think they would do to Wikipedia if WP:IAR meant that anyone could add information they inferred from various sources? Please reply if you would like to do so, but I think it would be better for you if I were to disengage for a while after reading your view. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I thought would happen all links to thepatientcapacitor.com were removed and this time not by me. To think that DVdm caused this because apparently she didn't like the style of writing and the colorful images in the linked post. It was agreed that the statement was true even though it could be made more accurate. It was agreed the post carried many cultural references for the specific generation. But DVdm has an extensive track record of not making any contributions herself, and spending an inordinate amount of time nitpicking on the work of others. I addressed the objections one by one, even when contradictory and all over the map. I was an enthusiast of Wikipedia. Now I think you set up a mighty fine bureaucracy round here. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

removed citation

Hi John, did you mean to also remove the ref in [5]? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not removed. It was simply abbreviated because it duplicated the original citation which is still intact. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Passers by remove the pronunciation and its reference. Then a bot comes and adds back the reference to a second instance where the ref is used; my edit restored the pronunciation and removed the repeated reference (repeated due to intermediate edits). Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see that I should have used a couple more words in the edit summary... Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I wouldn't worry that much. It happens when you do multiple things in one edit and leaving any edit summary is better than leaving no summary at all. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all; I should have looked at the history. Thanks for taking the time to explain. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It was my pleasure :) Thank you. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not wikistalking me, are you?

The BP oil spill is a very uncommon event (thankfully), it's a perfect current example of a Black Swan event, it satisfies all of the criteria, and you removed content without cause, thus weakening the project. No one was editorializing.

At Wikipedia:Red_link#Dealing_with_existing_red_links, it says:

• The red link may be a typo—e.g., someone wanted to link to George W. Bush, but instead typed George W. Bussh. In this case, try to figure out the intended article and fix the link.

That was exactly what I was doing. If you actually bother to "correct" an edit, maybe it's a good idea to also bother to take a look at your "correction" with Show preview and fact check before actually hitting the Save page button. 70.109.182.22 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as you say that was my mistake. Thanks for fixing it. I use a setting (see User:Johnuniq/monobook.css) that puts a red, dashed line around diffs to make it easier to see small changes. Unfortunately the line added a bit of space and I thought there was a space in the original. It's true that space and underscore work the same, but there are people who runs scripts to tweak wikitext and one of things they do is to replace underscores with spaces. Another factor is that I dumbly assumed there were no redlinks in the article because I regularly watch it and am still confused about how I missed the fact that it had a redlink. Having made this mistake I wondered if you were doing the same thing in a bunch of articles (in which case I would have left a note on your talk page saying it was redundant). Therefore I looked at your contributions, and saw this was a one-off. However, I happen to be fond of the Black Swan concept so I had a look at the article and the recent changes. You will see that someone else has removed the new text at Black Swan regarding the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion, so my edit there was supported by at least one other editor. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. Please relax about the "wikistalking" because it is absolutely standard to check the contributions of other editors, and I fully acknowledge that your edit at Black Swan was helpful – it was the addition of the new text by the previous editor that I thought was inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Perdana College of Malaysia

John, A week or so ago you looked over the article I was creating for this school and it has been declined twice. Would you look over it and tell me what else in non wikispeak to do? Smithmd2 (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how the WP:Articles for creation process works, and am asking for help so that I can advise you. I will post a message on your talk page when I learn something.

Regarding the draft article: It is not clear what the institution is (why of Malaysia in Dhaka?). How many students? The article at UCSI University is quite similar, but there is an assumption that a genuine university meets the notability policy and so warrants an article. In the case of a private college, the situation is not so clear and there should be an indication in reliable sources that the college is notable. Ideally, some independent media outlet would have written about the college, and you could add a fact from what was written to the article, and provide a reference to the source of the information (that is, information to identify the paper or magazine, the issue date and page, the publisher). Do not worry about how to format a reference, just put the text into the article and someone will format it into a normal reference.

A problem with the draft article is that it reads as if a prospective student is being addressed, rather than as a general encyclopedic article. Of course there does need to be information regarding what courses are offered, but the precise address of the college, and the number of credit hours are not needed (that information should be on the official website). I am watching the draft at WT:Articles for creation/Perdana College of Malaysia and will see changes that occur there.

On a minor issue, I removed the leading spaces in your above message because they cause the text to have a special format that is not suitable a message. There should be no space at the beginning of each line. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thanks

Thanks for your input at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Your_opinion_please.... Do you think that two respondents who think the map is not WP:OR is sufficient consensus to restore the map? Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is sufficiently important that it should receive more discussion. I have created a new section (see WP:NORN#Original images) where I hope to attract more views. I have notified Iqinn. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't editors have a say about policy?

Your recent comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales confuse me. Why is it so important to you to prevent users from having any say over policy? That you can't even acknowledge it as a policy, lest they find out what it is, let alone try to change it. That is absolutely diametrically opposed to every way that I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work. A person does not have to be a 'pedophile activist' to find a problem with that - you're talking about rule by cabal and making Wikipedia no longer an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of places where free speech can be exercised, and where libertarian views can be advanced. I would be inclined towards both of those views myself, but not here – it's just not helpful. I am extremely glad to not have any real world responsibility where my opinion on what controls should be applied to pedophiles would matter because I would then be obliged to engage in serious debate concerning tolerance and human rights (and I can see both sides of the "lock 'em up" response). However, this is a website dedicated to developing a free encyclopedia, and we simply do not need to find evidence-based reasons for why there should be a zero tolerance towards pedophiles: that is the Jimbo and WMF and Arbcom defacto policy, and it has received strong community consensus whenever a debate has occurred. It's the latter point (strong consensus) that negates the need to endlessly debate what pro-pedophile activity should be allowed at Wikipedia. I acknowledge that my attitude would be inappropriate if this site were run by the ACLU, and yes, "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit" is an exaggeration. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that you may have consensus support. But if that is so, why not do it the right way? Hold a vote, establish it as a formal policy, leave the editors to debate over the details. It's true that the debate never ends, but that is the case for every policy on Wikipedia. While I think that the pedophile POV exclusion is a bad idea, I see why it has a strong superficial appeal. I think that letting ArbCom make policy, and officially leaving it unclear what is prohibited and what isn't (especially when it seems that it may infringe on legitimately sourced and impartially determined points of view) are much worse ideas and more important to stop. Wnt (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a pragmatic person who fully accepts that the world is not perfect. Some people want to improve the world by questioning why a free encyclopedia, supposedly espousing consensus and inclusion, would want to exclude a category of humanity (pedophiles and their advocates). My response is that this is not the place to right all wrongs, or to promote free speech. I accept that the defacto zero tolerance policy is an exception to the spirit of consensus, and that it conflicts with a desire to include editors with all points of view. I am sufficiently self confident that I am not at all worried that a website (Wikipedia) should have a body (Arbcom) that extremely rarely makes ex cathedra policies. Sure, that is less than ideal, but the alternative (where trolls and advocates can use Wikipedia to continually and repeatedly espouse nonsense) is untenable. Yes, we continually debate nonsense like vandalism, porn, civility and much more, but some debates are much more unhelpful than others: debating what would be acceptable for a pedophilia advocate to do on Wikipedia is a good example of such unhelpfulness. Leaving this issue up to Arbcom is the worst possible solution, except for all the others. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There must be some way in which we don't understand one another. I don't see why ArbCom would make a better policy decision than the editors, and I don't see the argument about what a pedophile advocate can do, but rather whether editors are allowed to work on the topic without feeling at risk of being branded and banned as pedophiles if they quote the wrong sources. Also, I don't know how "extremely rare" such policies are and whether some others I haven't heard about are much worse than this one. If we accept this I don't see a way to audit or limit this centralization of control. Wnt (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A non-SPA editor who occasionally quotes "the wrong source" will never experience trouble. As a pragmatist, I regard the current situation re zero tolerance as sufficiently close to perfection that no change is required. You may never accept anything less than total democracy where every point is debated, and redebated because consensus can change, and so on. That sort of democracy is fine and essential for points where there is genuine contention, but there is no perfect system of government, and it's far better to have smart people (Jimbo, WMF, Arbcom) handle pedophilia. If you want total freedom, you will have to look elsewhere. I am not free to push a POV in articles, or to harass editors, or even to be uncivil; I try to live with such limits on my freedom. Murderers are free to edit Wikipedia because there is no indication that murderers use the Internet to promote murder. The converse applies to pedophiles. Yes, it's unfair, and yes, the world is not perfect. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we must have different preconceived notions about the abuse of power. I'm writing from the U.S., where an enabling act from the Great Depression was used by successive presidents to write an endless stream of "temporary" executive orders banning the internet availability of encryption software, and every time one was struck down in the courts it would be reissued by a different agency. So I feel that executive power has to be limited strictly. Also, I would worry a whole lot more about fascists recruiting than pedophiles; yet I'm not advocating for them to be banned here. And I do see many of the other policies as well-honed ideas for a good system of collaborative writing — but I see this one as dangerously inconsistent with the rest of them.

But I don't want to pester you endlessly - you've been kind to discuss this so quickly already - so in parting, I wonder if you might be interested in another issue where you might say I was on the other side of a pedophilia-related debate, and oddly enough, seemed to be losing! [6] This was in discussion of WP:No legal threats, where I wanted to help us avoid going the way of the Catholic Church by having the policy very clearly state that there will be no punitive action against people who make police reports or serve as witnesses, as such statements of fact are not discretionary legal actions. The only situation where I can imagine that the policy should affect criminal law would be if someone here claimed to be a prosecutor and told an editor that he would file charges for a past action, unless the editor agreed to do something like delete files. Wnt (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK but for me this is still a website without control over my real life, so the cumbersome and laughable legal balancing that is necessary for government of society is not needed here. While perfection would be good, I know it is not achievable (see WP:ANI for daily examples), so any warm glow I might get by having Wikipedia truly open to all would not compensate for the probable consequences. An important point is that user X might be a pedophile and edit here for years: it's only if X is known to be a pedophile activist (from off-wiki or on-wiki activity) that X will be permanently banned. Accordingly, there is no actual problem that needs solving because we do not require editors to have a police check.

While I had not seen the discussion at WT:No legal threats, I had noticed the extremely misguided reactions to Sanger's misguided action. Some people who are normally quite sane seemed to want to do everything possible to cause trouble for Wikipedia (banning a well known person who makes a misguided off-wiki complaint – wow, what could possibly go wrong?). However, I do not favor codifying common sense, and the event is so rare that additional instructions do not seem worthwhile. I also have sympathy with the views expressed on the NLT talk that any procedure to involve an editor in real life drama (a police investigation), without strong prior consensus to do so, is sufficiently close to a "legal threat" to warrant WP:NLT action. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied your ANI response to article talk

Copied here. Hope you don't mind. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure to be of small assistance. Thanks for the message. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ello Ello, what's this then?

Right after I said it was likely a WP:POINT violation to continue the RFC, you posted a vote. I particularly "like" the fact that you altered the vote count in the next section. :-P [7]

Was this a simple edit conflict, or do you disagree with that analysis, or were deliberately violating WP:POINT, or something else, or... ?

Any of these are fine, but I'd very much prefer you came out and said so! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite innocent really: When I started my reply, you had not posted your "pause". I took quite a while to work out what to say, and when I went to add it, you had posted. I was not going to discard my carefully worded text at that stage so I inserted it and then felt I had to update your count. So yes, it was a form of edit conflict. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, very good. No problem then. Thanks for coming out and saying so! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The comma is wrong

Sorry I didn't know we weren't supposed to use commas on Wikipedia I though I should improve the article by putting a comma in the proper place but I didn't know I was supposed to go to the talk page to request permission to use a comma I'm sorry I won't use commas in the article anymoreMk5384 (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that a comma has caused a problem, but edit summaries have to be brief. The article (Barack Obama) has existed without that comma in the first sentence for a long time, and it was fine for you to insert it if you really think that everyone missed a syntax error at the start of the article. However, there was no error and the comma really is not needed, and in fact it would not be correct to use a comma there. For the record, here is a diff showing the comma being inserted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The comma is proper, as the sentence is attempting to demonstrate that President Obama is the current President, in addition to being the 44th President. Perhaps someone thinks that "44th" is synonomus with "current". It is not. He will always be the 44th President. He will (thankfully) not always be the current President.Mk5384 (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Barack Obama#Comma. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment at the top of this section, which I posted several days ago, was a very childish way for me to have expressed my opinion. I was in the midst of a rather stressful situation here, but that was no excuse for taking it out here, on you. My apologies. I still feel that it is grammatically correct to use two commas in the sentence, and I'm still not keen on the idea of a "consensus of users" deciding that "it looks better without it". However, I'm beginning to realise that not every argument needs to be had. In any case, you certainly didn't deserve the condescending way in which I disapproved of it. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up, and no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

EcoliWiki questions

Hi, I understand about the categories pages, but to be honest, I am LOST when it comes to the wikiprojects. I really didn't want to stuff Wikipedia full of links to EcoliWiki, it's just that I recently put my blood, sweat and tears (time, really) into the Mobile Genetic Elements, Insertion Sequences and Transposons!! Since it's quite E. coli-centric, I figured I'd just throw a link on those pages, but I think I am in WAY over my head now! Sorry for sounding desparate, but I really have no idea what I am doing!!Brenleymcintosh (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time for this atm, but over the next couple of days I will have a closer look and may ask the question for you (although it's quite easy). However, this sort of issue needs some idea of the scope: how many pages at EcoliWiki would you want to have links from here, that is, how many external links would you want here? 10, 100, 1000? Or, is it just the three pages you edited (Insertion sequence, Mobile genetic elements, Transposon)? Please be patient because this will take a few days to clarify. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No hurry - I REALLY appreciate the help! For now, it's really just the three pages! I would guess that it might be 10-20 pages in Wikipedia in total. There is a lot of really good biological info on Wikipedia already, but EcoliWiki focuses only on E. coli and we quite often link back to Wikipedia for the more general concept & info. As I said, I don't want to dump a bunch of links on Wikipedia, but it would be a good place for scientists to start & if they are looking for more technical info, they could find a link to EcoliWiki's specific info on that topic. Since EcoliWiki is targeted to a rather specific audience and we have a relatively small group contributing, I can't see us needing to put up a bunch of links - we just don't work that fast!! Thanks again for all of your help and advice! This has actually been a really cool lesson for me as to what we'd love to have happen at EcoliWiki!!! Thanks! Brenleymcintosh (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked at WT:WikiProject Genetics#Links to ecoliwiki and we will see if there is a response. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much!Brenleymcintosh (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, help

Hello, thanks to your advice I posted a request on BLPN because Tao2911 reinserted again a passage in Misconduct section of Eido Tai Shimano section. It has links to the same post in Tricycle blog which was decided is not acceptable source. Could you, please look into this. It is very hard to communicate to Tao. Is there any chance to bloc this section from editing for a while. He is very determined to insert the same things there again and again. Thank you!Spt51 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of misunderstanding about Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy evident at WP:RSN#Editors' blog at Tricycle Buddhist Review, however the situation is now different because it appears the subject of the article has resigned, so the current Eido Tai Shimano article (which does not include the text I previously removed) is probably ok. I have posted another message at WP:RSN, and I have read the associated discussion on the talk page of the article and at WP:BLPN. I will continue to watch the article and may comment further. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Genetic ancestry in Rio Grande do Sul

Hello, Johnuniq.

Maybe you will be interested in this issue. In Brazilians of Spanish descent, this paper, by Brazilian geneticist Andrea Rita Marrero, is used as a source for the information that "Gaúchos [...] are mostly descended from Spanish ancestors, and less from Portuguese". As this runs contrary to mainstream knowledge about the region, it would be interesting to understand what exactly are the bases for the paper's conclusions. Another paper by the same scientist (in collaboration with others) gives more details about the subject. Could you please help us with this subject?

Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, and I have now watchlisted the article to see if I might be useful. However, I doubt if I will by of any assistance because it's not a topic that appeals to me – I am from the "who cares?" school of thought who regard this kind of article as excessive classification. I can see the scientific interest (although anything when studied sufficiently is interesting), but I can't help assess the sources you mentioned. If you are looking for appropriately qualified people, I suggest finding articles discussing the genetic procedures, then check their talk pages for suitable WikiProjects, then post on the talk page of a project. Johnuniq (talk)

Thank you for your response and advice, Johnuniq. Ninguém (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes a Court

The material you removed from this entry in the 'Return to Australia' section was referenced and did not refer to any blogs. The references included The Bulletin, which is one of the premier news and current affairs publications in Australia. The reason the language 'some sources' was used is because there is conflicting information about the subject's departure from AACo. Both versions remain in the public record. Therefore the material is relevant and should have both sides available with references, as was the case. If the language used was not sufficiently NPOV then I am happy to take guidance. Everton Dasent (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will respond at Talk:Peter Holmes à Court. May I suggest that your comments should be on that page. If you feel it necessary, you could post a brief note here with a link to the discussion on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Data center infrastructure management

Hi, I did not originally create the article, so I think it would be best to direct this question to User:Daveallanc. I will take a look at it though. Nlyte.Software —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkerliautaud (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems this comment relates to Data center infrastructure management and a message I left at Talk:Data center infrastructure management. Thanks for your concern, but it's best to keep these conversations at one place (the talk page of the article). The user you mention has made a total of one edit (Special:Contributions/Daveallanc), and it seems Special:Contributions/140.239.92.34, Special:Contributions/Nlyte.Software and Special:Contributions/Parkerliautaud are related. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me out?

William Lane Craig. This page is getting... some attention. Help? Theowarner (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was offline while the drama was developing, but I am watching and may be able to help in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Anak Menteng

Please see my comments at the AFD and visit my rewrite of the article as currently held at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Obama Anak Menteng (film). Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

An excellent fix for the article, but I'm still groaning internally: someone took four days to write a book after a month of "research", then converted it to a film script, and we promote it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh.. don't groan. We aren't promoting any more or less than we might articles on multi-million dollar blockbusters that take years to be made and hit theaters. (Actually less... as it is a far smaller article than the money-boys' movies usually receive) Three things to remember: Indonesia has a far different film and publishing industry than the US's... and exists as a place where something can indeed be cranked out in a fraction of the time as might be done in the US. And his rush to publish was as an act of homage to Obama who was expected to make a state visit... first in mid-March (which is wht the book was released then) and again at the end of June (which is why the film production was slammed into high speed and rushed through post in order to release June 30). Obama's trips were cancelled both times. But what we do end up with is a lot of coverage in the press, before during, and after... and with negotiations for a US release, we will be getting lots more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's be frank: the book/film is complete fiction, apart from the already-known information regarding Obama's childhood in Indonesia (and available in one of Wikipedia's articles on Obama). Anything else in the book/film will be an "interpretation", i.e. made up. Yet I'm sure your analysis is correct, and it will become a troll magnet. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... as with any fiction film "based" upon real events, it needed to establish it's notability per WP:NF... which I think it has. Another fictionalized films based upon true events come to mind... JFK (film). It showed independent notability and was not folded into another article, even though Stone himself was accused of playing fast and loose with facts. I hope your worst fears do not come true. And as an aside, I did not vote for Obama, nor think he is yet deserving of a film. Perhaps this might be looked at by posterity as an Indonesian equivalent to Young Mr. Lincoln... a fictional homage of someone the writer/director thought worth honoring. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now in main space

Obama Anak Menteng (film) is the better and more easily sourced of the two, far less likely to ever be sent to AFD, and a merge/redirect to this newer article will preserve the contribution histories of the original. I tried to keep it as neutral as possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For taking the time and for the great analysis at ORN. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for your work at Prahlad Jani. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is very kind of you. Thank you for your nice comment. I really appreciate it. By the way nice talking to you after such a long time. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz at RSN

Hi. Thank you so much for weighing in at that thread. I'm attempting to summarize viewpoints there, since at this stage numbers seem somewhat divided, and I have included your view in my summary. Please read it over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Summarizing; more feedback welcome, since opinions seem divided and speak up if I've misunderstood you or if your opinion has changed. Under the circumstances, I think we need to nail this down, one way or another. :) Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded there. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese people descend from Homo Erectus Pekinensis

Dear Johnuniq,

Thank you for your good faith edits! I am scientist specializing in the fields of anthropology and paleoanthropology. I am posting the peer reviewed scientific journals which provide verifiable scientific evidence. The scientific studies I posted showing that the modern Chinese people have DNA passed down from Homo Erectus Pekinensis instead of African Homo Sapiens are NOT so-called "original research." They are all published in verifiable and reliable sources such as Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal and Oxford University's Oxford Journals. Please take some time to read about the Genetics Society of America and Oxford University's Oxford Journals so you can understand that they are both reliable and verifiable peer reviewed academic sources that are also prestigious institutions of higher knowledge. Please watch this video from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is also a peer reviewed reliable source: Chinese Academy of Sciences

Please take some to time to read the following peer reviewed and published scientific studies:

1.) Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

2.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

3.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals Global Patterns of Human DNA Sequence Variation in a 10-kb Region on Chromosome 1 by Ning Yu, Z. Zhao, Y.-X. Fu, N. Sambuughin, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins, E. Leskinen, L. Patthy, L. B. Jorde, T. Kuromori and W.-H. Li

4.) National Geographic Society Peking Man (Homo Pekinensis) Lived in China 200,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Thought -- 71.68.251.209 talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.54 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your dedication, but you need to go easy when other people are asking you to slow down. I see that you are blocked for a year for edit warring, so you may not return. If you do return, please ask more questions about how to collaborate here. I have moved your comment to the bottom (you should click "Add topic" to start a new discussion on a talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

tks

• Tks for your comments on Jimbo's talk. BTW, I do python as a sort of hobby, and a way to manipulate text files etc. later • Ling.Nut 08:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, although I'm afraid our comments will not impress many. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Life sucks, and then you edit Wikipedia. And then life sucks again, if you edit in WP:CPUSH magnets. • Ling.Nut 08:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

can you explain

ask for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Picture_dictionary&diff=379193182&oldid=378841837 My website http://vocabwilleasy.info/category/english-through-pictures/ has more information than http://www.pdictionary.com/ Can you undo for my link. Thank a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisgoodnow (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that the website was spammed, that is, several IPs and a couple of WP:SPA users attempted to add the link in several articles. See Special:LinkSearch/*.vocabwilleasy.info. The next step would be to not add the link to any articles, read WP:EL, ask yourself how the link helps Wikipedia. If you are confident, pick one article and add a section to the talk page where you suggest adding the link, and perhaps briefly describe how it is useful, and ask for comments. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages

Hello. You are invited to take part in the discussion on Science in the Middle Ages. The question is should we keep or remove the section on the Islamic world. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure how much I can contribute (I don't have an appropriate background), but I'll have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:71.88.58.198

Not at all a misunderstanding, and note that I used a test warning, not a vandalism warning. Did you read the edit? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I read the edit (diff). I understand that some people point out the date as original research to cast doubt on the certificate, but there has not been any recent activity in that area that I can see, and such edits may be simply undone, and I do not see a reason to issue a warning. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ingo Haar "unreliable"

Please check Ingo Haar and VS Verlag before making statements like this. --78.53.40.172 (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary is intended to say that the reference (a book) is not sufficient for the statement in the article (without any comment about Ingo Haar). WP:BLP is a very strong policy that protects living persons, regardless of their personal situation, and while the single reference may warrant "X claimed Y distorted evidence..." (where X and Y are living people), some serious justification is required before upgrading that to "X showed Y distorted evidence..." (I see no explanation on Talk:Heinz Nawratil). This is not your personal website where you can pretty much say what you like. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Try Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt for a start. Haar being the equivalent to Richard J. Evans BTW. --78.53.40.172 (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John. One critic, who has found one distortion in one of Nawratil's works, does not make the day. It should be simply stated and attributed. No reason to add an inflammatory category based on this. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you live? Even in Estonia somebody who is caught stealing is a thief. This is not about opinion, but about facts. Haar provides proof, that Nawratil distorted evidence and effectively created Pseudohistory, the definition being Shermer/Grobman's. The category is therefore sufficiently justified.--78.53.40.172 (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Miacek: Thanks for the comment.

@78: I understand the point you are making, and there are some dubious people in the world and they should be resisted, however notice how you can link to Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt and Richard J. Evans (these are substantial articles on en.wikipedia), but I do not see corresponding articles regarding the topic we are discussing. You need more than a mention in one book to use strong wording (if it's not already obvious, I cannot read German and have not read the book; my comments are based on the material in the article, and Google translate). Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pseudohistory is not Holocaust denial, but Holocaust denial is Pseudohistory. In fact, the is category is not as inflammatory as Miacek wants everybody to belief. The problem starts when people like Dr Nawratil, who are not trained historians start to write about historical topics. Most of us will make honest mistakes, but some of us delibarately distort evidence. That is basically Pseudohistory. So, if we have the Category:German historians, we have to show, that he can not be relied on. Of course, we could remove that category, and simply state in the article, that his publications on the expulsion of Germans after World War II are not reliable sources.--78.53.40.172 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is again a pretty strong statement. One proven point wrong, and all of his work is unreliable, he can not be relied on? You're putting the threshold pretty low, don't you? I think here that it is better to have multiple sources that show that there are multiple instances wrong, before these categories are changed, and that such general statements or hard statements are made. Until then, mentioning the one mistake is more than enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few reviews addressing the problem. They have been mentioned in the article before, but they have been removed by User:Skäpperöd. --78.53.40.172 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly any further comments belong at Talk:Heinz Nawratil, but I will conclude by saying that I looked at the diff you just provided, and while I did not study the second section that was removed, the first section removed was removed correctly, and the edit summary which mentioned "violate WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP" was again correct. The removed text said essentially "LivingPerson wrote an article which appeared in Magazine, and SomeWebsite has described Magazine as the 'world's leading Holocaust denial organization'". That kind of smearing by association is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia. You are welcome to put it on your blog, but not here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)