User talk:Kernow/archive1

Non-gene reproduction

Thanks for the answers to some of my questions. I do understand at least some of the definition of gene (having gotten halfway thru a Mol. Bio. degree ~6 years ago), though I do think I probably was miscongealing the definitions of gene and cistron (though cistron is too short for what I was fully thinking of, I was thinking of that as well as the entire transcription frame product). Thanks also for clarifying which kind of gene is generally refered to in memetics.

I am uncertain whether you are fully correct in your answer to question number 5, but it has given me more to think about. A single symbol can represent multiple concepts, a single concept can be (if properly understood) represented by multiple perceptual schemes/frameworks/symbols. These might be considered different memes, probably analogs or workalikes. I seem to innately differentiate between concepts and shells (symbols) which hold them, something you indicate most memetics texts don't do. An analog of phenotypic vs genotypic. Or perhaps I've misunderstood, I'll have to reread and think about your responses a bit.

6)I don't think this question makes sense.

I was attempting to refer to whether the concept of memes (as derived from genes) is the best way to represent what it is memes attempt to explain. Overly minimal usage of language on my part, sorry. --Formerly the IP-address 24.22.227.53

Thanks for the responses, I shall look at it (even Dawkins, though he implies that I am insane in Unweaving the Rainbow: but do any of us really tie our life's hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway? Of course we don't; not if we are sane.

;-P -- fortunately not all of them, and I expect the possibility of dying frustrated in these hopes.)

Re: Jamie Miller

Okay, I let him know (I was just sending him PMs through Flickr so I don't know his e-mail). This is the Google query I found it with:

"i just lost the game" daterange:2448713-2452000 -2006 -2005 -2004

Yeah, it was mostly luck... Ashibaka tock 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't get my e-mail address... I found his Flickr account after doing a separate (and similarly complicated) Google query. Ashibaka tock 21:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First references to the Game

First references I can remember to the game were probably in 2003... I've only been a participant since 2004.

Just a bunch of mostly students, some at the University of Limerick in Ireland. Various acquaintances "playing" the Game are now all around Ireland and the UK.

zoney ♣ talk 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Italic text[reply]

7WTC

I see you added a video and a transcript to that article. Please see my comments on the talk page...I'm wondering where the transcript came from. Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Mind if I move these comments to the talk page? I have some concerns about the transcript...Rx StrangeLove 16:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:757engine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:757engine.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:757engine.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:757engine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Spam

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

You will be blocked if you add the link again, Jonty (and I'll be happy to request a check user to verify that this account is using the same IP as Jonty303 (talk · contribs), an account that was warned repeatedly for spamming. This is your last warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on the game

Would you please re-read WP:N and express your opinion on the afd whether the game passes the current version of WP:N? Sethie 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Your submission to DRV added no new information, you just added more verbage and argument to what you listed last time believing people misunderstood. Presumably if you didn't get the answer you wanted this time it would also be because people misunderstood, it doesn't work like that. It failed AFD on the basis of notability and verifiability. For notability the requirement if multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Evaluation of what constitutes a reliable source is fairly open as is what constitutes multiple and non-trivial (Part of the consideration of reliable sources is the fact checked part, something which student papers often lack). The AFD and previous DRVs didn't believe the sources provided met the standard, you can't just keep relisting until you get the result you want. On a different note even if the article were restored the couple of sources you have don't provide verifiability for the vast bulk of the article anyway. --pgk 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note you seem unfamiliar with wikipedia, talk posts go at the bottom of the page not the top. Use the + sign next to the "edit this page" tab on talk pages to add a new section. --pgk 15:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD does cover notability with various comments regarding it, although verifiability may be the primary cause lack of verifiability tends to also cause lack of notability, since many of the notability standards are predicated on non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. As to why a given source may not be considered adequate, I cover that above. As one of the AFD commenters said for the Dutch source "The single foreign language article used in support of this article is not reliable - not a news article with proper vetting process, but a whimisical column;", WP:RS gives guidance on evaluating the reliability of sources. --pgk 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Can I draw your attention to the user page guidelines specifically "copies of other pages" - this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content., I've deleted yours under speedy deletion criteria G4 - Recreation of deleted material --pgk 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Scrambles

I have nominated Scrambles, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrambles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Image source problem with Image:Madv.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Madv.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Nard 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I haven't edited Wikipedia for ages but I seem to have been blocked. My userpage says I may be a sockpuppet of my old account. Any suggestions? Kernow (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw the advice it gives when I try to edit a page so I'll take the appropriate steps tomorrow. Kernow (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kernow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. I think I have been blocked for being a "sockpuppet" of my old account. My first Wikipedia account was Jonty303 but I had to make a new one after losing my password. I'm guessing that this isn't against the rules, right? I don't edit Wikipedia very often these days but I would still like to be able to make edits with my usual user name. If someone could remove the block I would be very grateful. Thanks Kernow (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that this account is promoting the same web sites that the other accounts did, I wouldn't feel right about unblocking this account. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've left a message for the blocking administrator. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this list; can you shed any light on it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Haywood has been using Wikipedia to promote himself and his losethegame site (which was blacklisted because among other things it hosts a Firefox plugin for vandalizing Wikipedia) for several years. PLUSChelmo (talk · contribs · logs) and Rabidfoxes (talk · contribs · logs) are also likely to be Haywood or a friend of Heywoods (note deleted edits of PLUSChelmo). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the quick response. I haven't used Wikipedia for ages. Jonty303 was my old account but I lost the password and I don't know about any of the other users. I didn't know that my site was blacklisted, I can remove plugin if it's an issue. Thanks, Kernow (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an advocate of vandalizing Wikipedia, I can't imagine you'd ever be allowed to use the site again. -Nard 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I certainly don't consider myself an "advocate of vandalism" and I genuinely and sincerely apologise for any problems my website has caused here. I have a strategies page with ideas for making other people think about The Game. The part involving Wikipedia was sent to me by a visitor to the site, as is a lot of my site's content. I added it to the site as I do with anything people send me relating to The Game. I did test the makingwikilose program first on a sandbox page and it didn't seem to do anything, so I included it as the joke I presumed it was meant to be. Nobody alerted me of it causing any problems, and I haven't been updating that part of the site much recently so I had completely forgotten about it. Again, I am sorry if it did cause problems and I will remove that section of the site immediately. I haven't edited Wikipedia in a long time and I only wish someone had alerted me that my site had caused problems here so that I could have done something about it sooner. There wasn't even a block notification on my talk page, I just logged back in to find myself unable to edit and had to figure out why (although there was no mention of my site - the block reason says something about being a sockpuppet of my old account). I don't engage in Wikipedia vandalism (and have reverted vandalism when I've spotted it) and I hope to be able to consign this unfortunate misunderstanding to the past so that I may continue to make positive contributions in the future. Kernow (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all references to Wikipedia from my site. (I can't link to it here to show you because of the blacklisting, but go to the strategies section on the website if you want to check.) Again I apologise for any problems it has caused. Kernow (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen Email

I emailed FisherQueen, the administrator who declined my unblock request, over two weeks ago but have received no reply. As such I feel I must request unblocking for a second time. I include my email below as it summarises my situation:

Dear FisherQueen,

I am e-mailing you in the hope that you may be able to help me with a Wikipedia problem. I have recently logged back in to Wikipedia after a long break only to find my account blocked. There is no block notification on my talk page, but when I try to edit a page it says that I may be a sockpuppet of my old account.

I followed the instructions for making an unblock request and you responded, asking me whether I could shed any light on a list of users that are apparently suspected of belonging to me as alternate accounts.

Unfortunately I didn't see your response in time to comment before you declined the unblock request. I don't want to just request another unblock without discussing it first, as I am aware that this may come across as trolling, which is not my intention. Since I can't post on your talk page due to the block, I thought it best to e-mail you instead.

Essentially the only accounts I recognise on that list are Jonty303 which is my old account (abandoned due to password loss), and Kernow, which is my current account.

I don't know who those accounts such as LosingTheGame etc are...if I were to make a guess, it would be that they are visitors to my website, which gets quite a lot of traffic now because of its media coverage.

I am interested to know whether they specifically impersonated me by name; I assume you aren't allowed to provide me with any information that would help me work out who they are, but I will see what I can find out myself in case it is anybody I know irl acting the fool.

When declining my unblock request, you gave the reason that I had been "promoting the same web sites as the other accounts did". I am not quite sure what you meant by this.

About 4 years ago, when I first started using Wikipedia as Jonty303, I wrote articles about several topics I was interested in. I had information on my website about some of these topics, so I added external links to the relevant sections on my site. As with many new editors, I really didn't understand Wikipedia at the time, and I will freely admit that many of my edits were inappropriate, based on my own knowledge and experience rather than reliable sources. It was a very long time ago and I honestly don't remember a huge amount, but I believe some administrators warned me about what I was doing and once I understood where I was going wrong, I changed my ways. I am certain that I was never blocked for my behaviour.

If you examine my contributions as Kernow, you'll see that I didn't promote my website anywhere, which is why your decline reason confused me. All I can find is a very brief mention, long ago, when someone removed a link to the site from The Game article before it was deleted and I discussed it on the talk page. An administrator warned me that I'd be blocked if I pursued it, which I didn't.

I honestly have no desire to promote my site anywhere on wikipedia. I haven't added a link to it anywhere for years and I can assure you that I have absolutely no intention of doing so in the future.

I don't know what the duration of my block is, because there is no block message on my talk page. If it isn't too much trouble, please could you kindly look up for me the duration of my block, as I don't know how to find that out?

If I may ask for your suggestion, given the above information, what would you do in my shoes? Do you think I should make another unblock request, or is there someone else I should contact for help first?

Many thanks for your time and help.

Best regards,

Jonty Haywood (User Kernow, previously Jonty303)

Kernow (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Unblock Request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Based on the discussion above and below, it appears as though the given reason for the block, sockpuppetry, was somewhat of a misunderstanding. As for the other concerns, it appears as though both MangoJuice and Fritzpoll would be will to unblock you at this point, something which I obviously agree with. I see no problems with you being unblocked provided you keep to our conflict of interest guidelines as you have said you would below. This is not an official topic ban, just a general request to use common sense (as we expect of everyone) when editing. Other admins are welcome to talk to me if they have questions about this.

Request handled by: Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your request Fritzpoll (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, I recommend that we create a WP:SSP report and get a consensus before deciding what to do about this block. There is an assertion of sock puppetry, and I have seen enough evidence to suggest that this is not completely unfounded. It bears closer investigation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kernow for an analysis of what we know, and what we might learn. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin note While Kernow/Jonty denies knowledge of the "LoseTheGame" accounts about, note that one of those accounts admitted to being the owner of the website, which is Jonty. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, Jehochman. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kernow: While we're working this out, I note that you've talked about some things you did do in the past, some things you didn't, and things you won't do in the future. What will you do? What kind of editing do you want to be involved in? Are you going to continue to be primarily focused on The Game (mind game) or are there other areas of interest? Mango juice^talk 19:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly editing the Jonty Haywood, which shouldn't exist in the first place. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, I'm going to ask you to back off. You are personally involved in this area. You have a problem with the Jonty Haywood article, you know what to do: renominate it for AfD. Mango juice^talk 12:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser case has come up with an unlikely association between the two "fresh" accounts. Inclined to unblock Fritzpoll (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to hear his answer to my question first. Mango juice^talk 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kernow, I'm quite willing to unblock and give you another chance at productive editing. But I'd want to know what kind of editing you'd want to be doing, given that this account was used to evade a block on the Jonty account. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The user ~~created a new account~~ continued using this account while the first was indefinitely blocked, and returned to The Game (mind game). Conflict of interest editing is not productive, and should not be resumed. What articles does the user want to edit? Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. The earlier account stopped editing in February of 2006 but wasn't blocked until May 2008. This account was registered back in 2006. Mango juice^talk 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you all for looking into my request.

First of all I think there has been a slight misunderstanding. I never used this account to evade a block on Jonty303. Jonty303 was not blocked when I abandoned it in 2006 due to password loss and created this account to replace it. I haven't logged in to Jonty303 since before creating Kernow. According to the block log, Jonty303 became blocked in May 2008, which I only discovered just recently. I don't think I have done anything that can be considered block evasion, as I have edited only this talk page since either block was applied.

I don't plan to focus on The Game (mind game) article, and I understand Wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines, to which I fully intend to adhere. My current personal interests include genetics, evolution and other areas of biology, although I anticipate contributing whenever I come across a topic to which I can make a useful contribution.

If you have any further questions, just let me know. Thanks again for your help. Kernow (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Fritzpool - do you agree? If so I think, go ahead and unblock. Mango juice^talk 17:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth now, I would certainly have been willing to unblock on this basis, and would have done so had I had more net access over the weekend! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty303

I have tagged that account as a {{FormerAccount}} instead of a sockpuppeteer. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]