User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johnuniq. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Basis Database

Can you explain why you tore down our page on this subject. We are trying to raise the profile of this product and as the Collection Server experts within OpenText UK, we are curious as to your rationale. Look forward to hearing from you. Pwallace pivotal (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that Wikipedia can be hard to follow, but a very strongly enforced rule here is that copyright violations are not permitted. Often, a new editor associated with some organization will post more or less a copy of their website to start an article. Virtually all such material is a copyright violation and must be removed. Unfortunately the policy on this is verbose and hard to follow, see WP:C, however a moment's reflection will show that since copyright violations are unethical, not to mention prohibited by law, it is clear that such material cannot be used at Wikipedia. In principle, it is possible for the owner of material to officially introduce themselves (i.e. reveal their real-life identity with proof that they are the copyright owner), and donate the material (which requires that anyone can use the material for any purpose including commercial—see previous link). However, for Basis database, that is unlikely to happen and is not suitable anyway since it is just a standard description of a product. The options are to completely rewrite the text in encyclopedic terms, or have the page deleted as a copyright violation, or demonstrate that it is not a copyright violation.

At Basis database, click the "history" tab at the top of the page (you presumably did that because you undid my edit). In the history page, you can see the reason for my change to the article in the edit summary where I gave the URL of the website that contains the original material copied into the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that I had already left an explanation at the talk page of the user who created the article (User talk:Sohara pivotal). Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Unless you have a really good reason for refactoring my report I suggest you revert yourself. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a blunder, and I have just restored your comment. I have not visited that page recently, but I was working rather quickly through my watchlist, and must have accidentally clicked 'rollback' on the line with WQA. I had better check what else I have done in the last few hours... Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Re your response to an IP, the context is [1]. See the IP's talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not notice the background. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida? The answer is Yes!

Listen Johnuniq, try to understand. The question is if it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida. The answer is Yes!<br /
For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.

Wikipedia encyclopedia newer hide facts and links to references of that same correct information. If Johnuniq want to improve the articles and for some reason dosen´t want my report as a reference, Johnuniq must prove it wrong. Then Johnuniq must delete all the information, pictures and theories which I have contributed to in the galling, wear and Stress (mechanics) articles, because they are closely linkt to my research.

Do I promote my self, or do I promote a theory?? It´s clear I promote the theory not my work. But do you really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research? --Haraldwallin (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Variations on the above were posted at a couple of places. Discussion on whether to use links to a thesis should occur on the talk page of the article concerned, and there is no need to post messages such as the above at my talk because I can see your response at your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Early social changes under Islam

Hi. Could you list Jagged85's edits on this article as edit blocks? Thx in advance Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had forgotten how to do that because it's quite a long time since the last request. However, I have reminded myself and it seems to have worked easily. See Talk:Early social changes under Islam#Misuse of sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[2]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented at the RfC (I have looked at the page a few times since my last comments in September ... slow going, but good work!). Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for your input. It's a tough fight, but things are looking up! Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Text posted was:

for reverting white-space and re-breaking a citation while doing so. Alarbus (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary to leave a user talk page message when someone has performed a single undo, with a clear edit summary. It would also be better to speak plainly rather than misuse a barnstar (which is why I have removed it above). Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please ease over to math article e

Your comments and opinions are most desired and requested at talk:e. — Cpiral Cpiral 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert but I don't think I have anything to offer that discussion at the moment. I am watching the page and may comment later. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Age of the Earth

Could you elaborate on your reversion of the previous editor's change to the hatnote? It seems to me that their edit was a good one, as it makes the difference between the two articles clear to the reader and, as the previous editor said, is consistent with Age of the Universe. Cheers! -- LWG ^talk 02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The right place to raise this is Talk:Age of the Earth. While there may be good reasons that Age of the Earth should have a hatnote similar to that at Age of the universe, the latter article seems more speculative in nature to my untrained eye (for example, see the disclaimers in the lead), and "scientific estimates" may be an appropriate description in that case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not post it on talk because it was not a major issue and I was not sure you would be watching it. However, as "scientific estimates" is the terminology used in the sources cited, shouldn't we use the same in the article? -- LWG ^talk 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to copy this over to the article talk so others can see it and possibly get involved, when I saw that another editor has undone me, so I think I'll just leave it at that. If the matter is raised at the article talk, I will make my above point there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. -- LWG ^talk 03:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WePay

John, thank you for this reversion, which upheld the quality of the article. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...I would like to do more constructive things eventually, but there is so much inappropriate material to remove/refactor that I never get around to it. I am watching that article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm grateful that you're keeping an eye on the article. Keeping articles clean of spam and copyright violations and cleaning up after single-purpose role accounts also waste much of my time, especially when the SPAs edit war to reinstate their policy-violating "improvements". Cunard (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating

While responding today, I kept noting 'Semi-retarded' where 'semi-retired' was written on the top of my page. Wondered:'Did I do that?' 'If not me, I'll still let it stand. It's a fair comment' etc. Checked the code, no evidence for how 'Semi-retarded' got there. This evening, I return to the page and I see now 'semi-retired'. No one has altered the page so I was subject for a half hour to an optical illusion, or rather a visual projection of my real thoughts on myself for getting mixed up in these humongously silly pages where fairness has to be fought for with sysiphean tedium. Keep out of the IP area!Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't encourage the children, but that was pretty good! If you edit your talk page, then scroll down to the very bottom, a list of template "transcluded onto...this page" is shown. Clicking Template:Semi-retired and then its history page leads to this edit which introduced the improved wording. Sometimes bad text appears in an article and you can't find it in the wikitext—that is probably template vandalism like this. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not blank sections of referenced information from the astrology pages without good reason

I see that you substantially changed the text affecting the zodiac sign pages. I want to make you aware that there is full, extensive discussion concerning the structure and design of the astrology sign pages, and clear consensus in favour of utilising the text you have removed. If you have reasons why you dissaprove of the text please contribute to the discussion and explain those reasons so that those who are currently working on guidelines for structure and content on these pages can understand your objections. This would be useful. The relevant discussion is here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As discussed at the article talk pages, Wikipedia should not be used to elevate a topic of interest to a group of enthusiasts. Cooperation from the enthusiasts would lead to more encyclopedic and stable versions of the articles. If cooperation is not forthcoming, the result will eventually be a decision taken by the wider community, probably at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to give the working link to the discussion. It is here. Please note the consensus and the spirit of co-operation. You will also have noted, since you read the talk page, it was proposed for the WP: Astology project members to create guidelines on content and sources. Since this process is ongoing, you are more than welcome to input your views. As I said, this would be seen as productive because if there is any particular reason why you have a problem with the text, other editors need to know and understand. This allows the opportunity to propose soltutions whereas blanking text against a strong consensus of opinion that it is necessary prevents the co-operation that leads to stable content, which goes against everyone's interests. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know if you are not reading or not understanding what experienced editors are saying. The matter will be resolved by the wider community eventually. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Harry Houdini

My recent edit to the exhumation subsection was recently reverted. I have undone that revision, but you reverted it. Why did I edit that way? Here:

"NEW YORK, March 23 -- Determined to right a historic wrong, a group that included authors, lawyers and a forensic pathologist called a news conference Friday to unveil a bold campaign to exhume a dead book. No, wait. To exhume a dead body. Well, that's what they said, anyway. But the more they talked about exhuming the body, the more it seemed like the point was reviving the sluggish sales of a nearly moribund book. Specifically, The Secret Life of Harry Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero, by William Kulash [sic] and Larry Sloman. Published in October, this door-stopper purports to reveal new and astounding elements of the great magician's life and death..."

-from Segal, David (March 24, 2007). "Why Not Just Hold a Seance?". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301850.html. Retrieved March 24, 2007. That is hostile to the biography, to the authors, and it clearly calls the book a door-stop, though the haec verba is "door-stopper"...which is the term we use in my family.

So, no, the edit stating the article is hostile to the book and the authors (as already cited with the citation of the article itself) and none of this is original research.

Let's actually read citations before we go round accusing editors. Djathinkimacowboy 09:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not raise issues about a single edit on the talk page of a user. Instead, put a new section at Talk:Harry Houdini where any editors interested in the article will be able to easily see the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is done, your point is well taken, and may I ask in return that you please not lecture people when they are trying to post to your convenience. Feel free, as you should do, to delet any unwanted posts on your talk page. But it is clearly stated in the rules that you cannot forbid editors from posting at your talk. Djathinkimacowboy 09:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please slow down and look at how things are done in other articles. The place would grind to a halt if every tiny disagreement resulted in multiple posts on the talk page of each involved editor. It would be normal to assume that anyone interested in an article would notice a discussion at its talk page—there is no need to notify individual editors. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

...and yet it took some prodding to get you to comment at the talk page. Apologies. I will not trouble you here further. But I could not ignore your reply after the information you posted at the talk page. It's odd that you and the other editor hold yourselves above discussion of small article details. Djathinkimacowboy 10:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please give opinion

Please give your opinion on regarding merging some articles at Talk:VIT University.--Alokprasad84 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and Civility

Hey there, I'm trying to advance the cause of civility on the NPOV page. I've tried to state my perspective without trying to discount other people's opinions (I'm sure I haven't succeeded completely) so I've try to lay it out in a historical progression. I've put forth three suggestions which in my opinion do not offend anyone's sensibility and would satisfy 90% of my concerns with the page. Please consider each one on its own merit and let me know if you think they would be acceptable compromises. More than anything I'd like to return some spirit of rationality and common cause rather than continue to see two stringently divided camps.--Factchk (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The tediousness of the Ugg boots campaign is beyond belief. I might comment at another time, but there should not be any proliferation of primary sources as justification for including synthesis with editor's opinions of legal cases. I do not know of any editor who suggests that Deckers does not own its trademarks, so if that is not clear in the article, a very minor tweak is all that is required. What's with the "Civility"? Is there some suggestion that those opposing use of Wikipedia to promote a company's interests have been uncivil? Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Learning the ropes.

Hello. At first I was irritated to be singled out for trying to resolve the issue of personal attacks on an article discussion page. I was simply responding to others who began the issue there, refused to let it go, posted a list of my alleged personal attacks, and declared that the issue must be resolved before they will join me in discussion of the article.

Yet now I think I get it—and thank you for singling me out. By closely adhering to the guidelines, myself, I maintain my protection under them, swiftly report their violations, and not continually have to justify why I joined personal statements—at the very razor's edge of personal attacks—once they severely violated Wikipedia guidelines with blatant personal attacks on me.

I thank you for helping me learn my options now helping me keep steady in mind where and how to report things before they snowball into such web of catch22s.

Anyhow, what is, where is, or how does one create a noticeboard (one of your suggestions)?

Kusername (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This relates to a comment I made at Talk:Scientific realism (diff).

I am going to provide some suggestions that may appear aggressive—sorry about that, but the way things are going tough advice is required. You have been editing for a while, but much more experience is needed before Wikipedia's procedures are grasped.

I did not single you out, and you have not closely adhered to the guidelines. In particular, your grasp of WP:IAR is completely faulty. What would be the point of any rules if anyone can say ignore all rules at any time? IAR exists for very good reasons which have nothing to do with the issues at Scientific realism.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, and editors should restrict their activities to that end. Bearing in mind that we each have frustrations and personal problems, it is to be expected that occasional uncivil comments occur. It is only a problem when such comments are unduly repeated. I have no idea what indignities have occurred at Talk:Scientific realism, but if the matter is reported at a noticeboard, it would be desirable to follow the advice that I provided at that page. In my short comment, I provided two links: one was to the appropriate noticeboard, and the other was to show how to include a diff in a comment.

By the way, the correct way to sign a comment is to add a space then four tildes to the end of the last line of the comment. In an email, it is common to put a blank line then a signature. That should not be done here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your critique aggressive. I agree with Karl Popper that human understanding grows by process of conjecture and refutation. At the "Scientific realism" page, I multiple times specifically asked for criticism of my edits and refutation of my stated principles whereby I was structuring the article. Yet I was offered only bullying, putdowns, unsupported accusations, and attributions of personal adjectives like "absurd" and "shameless" and "upset".

I was not telling you that I had closely adhered to the rules. I was saying that if I would closely adhere to them, I'd retain protection under them, not fall into the catch22 of trying to justify why—responding to prior and greater violations by others—I had departed from certain rules. Yet if you lack idea what indignities occurred at Talk:Scientific realism, it seems unfair to assert that you did not—apart from whether it was bad or good—de facto single me out by correcting only my behavior. That now adds the implication that I truly was the sole problem. I tried to say here that despite being singled out—simply the fact of what occurred—I'm thankful to the be beneficiary of correction for my own improvement, regardless of the behavior of others.

I do, however, feel it unjustified to say that my grasp of IAR is completely faulty. I did not even know there was a ban on discussing personal attacks on a discussion page. When I caught on, after checking guidelines, I tried to take discussion to one individual's talk page, but the individual ordered me twice to "stay off" it, then returned to the discussion page with a litany of putdowns and accusations about how horrid an editor I am—without offering a single explained illustration—and then asking me if that was enough criticism for me. (I had asked for criticism.) That individual had administrative power and kept posting warnings on my talk page when I analyzed and characterized their own statements about what the article should be like. Yet till now the only rule that I violated—as far I can tell and as far as even you have pointed out—was trying to resolve personal attacks, not levy them, on the discussion page.

I maintain only that I did not personally attack—at most inferred a couple of personal statements from their own assertions—that my edits of the article closely adhered to Wikipedia's rules, and that my method of trying to reach consensus by offering of citation and discussion was quite in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. The post of mine that you corrected me about was my response to a post that personally attacked me, posted a list of my putative personal attacks, and declared that they refused to discuss the article with me till we resolved the issue personal attacks. (That was the response I got when I specifically and directly tried to narrow discussion to characterization of my alleged original synthesis. Sincerely, should that be discussed somewhere else? It's not as if anyone has shown me a concise set of Wikipedia rules—they're scattered all over.) I made the mistake of taking the bait and thereby violated that single Wikipedia guideline of trying to resolve personal attacks in the discussion page.

When I come here, what I figured the proper place, to ask you for further help, but then open by thanking you, I feel it gratuitous—not aggressive—to suggest that I claimed I was flawless in meeting every Wikipedia rule, tell me that I'm completely flawed instead, and not even explain to me what I asked for help with: what a noteboard is. I thought you meant a noteboard was a place where, if I had a lengthy explanation of something—analyses, citations, and explanations—I could post it there and then just refer others to it while cohering with Wikipedia's rules. If there is no such place (I guess?), then okay.

I did not foresee burdening your talk page with such lengthy discussion, yet I think that your characterization of my behavior was—not aggressive—unwarranted and depicting me alike a reckless madman. So I would at least like to have some balance on record here. I presume that it is at least not in violation of Wikipedia guidelines to defend myself from such accusation here. Thank you for your time. Farewell, perhaps. Kusername (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading the comment I left at the article talk page (links above), shows that it was a statement of what should and should not occur on an article talk page. As such, my comment was not directed at a specific editor. Of course a reader can interpret it in that manner, particularly because the message that I replied to was an example of what should not be on an article talk page—that is not a problem with my comment. Please review WP:TLDR because no progress will occur until there is a succinct statement of any problems. Given that "The purpose of Wikipedia is to collaboratively build an encyclopedia", as I wrote above, long discussions about editors should only occur when necessary. My suggestion would be to drop thoughts of the past, and to focus on how to improve articles. Any technical questions can be asked at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't rebuking your original comment, simply adding sincere humanness—I thought—to my thanks while accepting the comment. Yet I had broken one rule—trying to resolve personal attacks on a discussion page as seemed the only way to communicate with both individuals at once—after I was ordered to "stay off" one editor's talk page and before I discovered which other recourse I had. Both editors, merely deleters, were flouting three of 5P, NPA, and consensus on the discussion page. I thanked you for correcting my single error—you noted only one I made—and got corrected for claiming I met every single rule flawlessly and then told that I completely ignore all rules. I'm familiar with TLDR. Sometimes length is truer than brevity. Thank you for your help, sincerely, the helpdesk link and the original comment. Farewell. Kusername (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Security Association

Hi John, you undid my revision [3] - I think 'establishment' doesn't capture that the entities negotiate and agree a connection. What do you think? I'm new to Security Associations and maybe it's not been well explained to me. --Flexdream (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This kind of discussion should occur at the article talk page (Talk:Security association) so others can easily see it. I am used to "establish" meaning that the parties negotiate and agree on the options that will apply, although I'm not sure how widespread that interpretation would be. I should look at the RFC to remind myself what it says, but I think a good argument could be made to reword the definition to remove the word "establishment" because a security association is a set of properties (not an establishment or an agreement). At any rate, I don't think this is an improvement: "A Security Association (SA) is the agreement of shared security attributes between two network entities to support secure communication" (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Flexdream (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks Johnuniq. Yes rollback will be a useful tool to revert vandalism. I'll review Wikipedia:Rollback again too. Robert Brockway (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq -- you need to provide a rationale for your edit. Otherwise you come across as a vandal. Thanks!

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cowboy 128Cowboy128 (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is part of the Internet confuses many new editors as it suggests that the normal nonsense of the Internet is how things are done here. Wrong! If you were hoping to continue editing, it would be worth reading some of the links that have been provided to get some familiarity with normal procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Article development policy is full of Russian text

Hello,

I was looking at this article, via the new user template:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_development

which I can't edit, and found it was full of text in Russian. That doesn't seem normal? Sirpastealot (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that—I have fixed it. The bogus text was introduced into a template that is transcluded (inserted) into Wikipedia:Article development, so the text would have been visible in quite number of places (that's called template vandalism). The template concerned is {{FAPath}} and it was this edit that corrupted it. You are welcome to ask here and I'll respond if I can, but advice is available at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I wasn't quite sure who to report it to. I hadn't seen the WP:HELPDESK page before.

On the copyvio, I really wasn't at all sure about this, as I could see the wiki article had been duplicated around. That's why I raised the query, for wiser heads. But I then found a book published in 2004 that had that material in it word for word, so I decided that (a) it must indeed be copyvio, (b) why not just delete it myself -- no-one else was around on the article, so why pester admins? So I went ahead and deleted it and removed the notice. Did I do right in this? Sirpastealot (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did right! The wiki is built by people who make decisions and take helpful action. I hope I didn't cause too much confusion with my suggestion about bacwardcopyvios: I just happen to be involved with one at the moment (see Talk:Cyber-bullying#Copyvio claim) and so it was on my mind, and I know from my early experience that it is a bit of a trap until it's pointed out. I still have not looked at your case, but your reasoning sounds good, and I believe you used appropriate edit summaries, so all is good. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Off topic" comments

My questions are not comments and they are not "off topic". They are VERY relevant. --Filterbypass (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have explained at your talk page that questions should be at the user's talk page, namely User talk:Jimbo Wales. Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. The question was deleted. Why? --Filterbypass (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your message had a heading of "Wikibias" and content:

Are you a Faucist? That is, do you have a strong personal opinion about who should receive treatment for HIV infection and who should not?

It is hard to make out what the message is about, so I suppose that someone removed it because there has been a lot of activity at User talk:Jimbo Wales recently and much of it has been of a somewhat misguided nature with rants and provocative assertions (not your comment—other comments), so it was assumed your message was part of that. If it is addressed to Jimbo, it should say why (why ask Jimbo about Fauci or HIV?). If something is wanted, it should be made clearer (what is wanted?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I did apologize for not messaging the user with additional explanationZola (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited Wikipedia for many years—without incident—until I edited the HIV page. There is a big controversy within the HIV community about who should be treated and who should not be treated. Most lay people are unaware of this controversy and there is a group of users (and one checkuser) who want to keep it that way. Any mention of this controversy is ALWAYS sanitised from the pages of Wikipedia. My question stands. Is Jim Wales a Fuacist? Is part of Fauci’s 4.8 billion dollar per year budget ending up in WMFs coffers? Or is he simply oblivious to what is going on at Wikipedia? If he is oblivious, what does he intend to do to protect good faith editors from harassment? (I have no reason to believe that the two of you are anything but innocent in this matter. The problem is obviously higher up. The question is “how high up?” ) --Filterbypass (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You are reading too much into whatever problem you have encountered. The likely explanation (and I don't recall ever seeing an HIV article here) is that some edits have been removed because the sources were not adequate, and I imagine that WP:MEDRS has been mentioned because science-based articles, and particularly those related to medical matters, must be sourced from appropriate science-based references. Try WP:RSN if you want other opinions on whether a source is reliable. I have no idea what edits you are concerned about, but the only bullying that I have ever seen at Wikipedia is from POV pushers who drive good editors to despair. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that POV pushers are bullies but you seem to be confused about who the POV pushers are. Is it your contention that this citation is unreliable? --Filterbypass (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not intend to get involved in a disagreement concerning HIV articles. When you try WP:RSN, you would need to provide a link to the source, and a link to the article, and an explanation of the proposed edit (a diff if one exists). A source may be reliable for some assertions, but not for others, so the proposed edit is also needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you’ve answered my question, thank you. --Filterbypass (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Johnuniq. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

oops

I reverted sinebot's addition to the Stress talk page instead of that off-topic comment (which you reverted). I guess you probably figured that out. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I scratched my head, then decided your edit summary was pretty clear so I didn't bother mentioning it at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I went ahead and did it. Five editors with strong preference for the previous version, versus an SPA, seems like consensus to me. Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good! I am still watching and will probably help if needed. To remind myself later, this is at Occidental Petroleum. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occidental Petroleum". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Like the previous section, this relates to Occidental Petroleum where a new editor has been soapboxing re the ugliness of certain business practices, and five experienced editors have tried to explain that Wikipedia is not used to right great wrongs. No mediation is necessary thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.