![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
RE: Do you want to permit some interchange of ideas from me ?
How can Reason and Science be associated correctly with Richard Dawkins flawed logic of Evolution and wrong logic ? --Forever true (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This section should be removed because it is not concerned with improvements to the article. Please see WP:TPG. Also, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and WP:FRINGE makes clear that pseudoscience is not given "equal time" with scientific topics such as evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry please remove me, from the bettering of the article. But the article has, other books comments! And your definition of pseudo Science clearly shows you are not aware of your logic, not thought reasons! So you can include me in others Books comments. I will go to Court over, I must advise you that using of pseudo-Science terminology. Not because of any offense, but because of your inferior logic. You are clearly showing your ignorance, and I am of no Religion, ok. Rather pure logic. Please see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Forever_true/Pure_Logic. And see if you can wrap your mind around the logic. Like Dawkin's Fallacy no.1 and no.2.
In true and correct Science of Pure Logic, the super-natural is associated with superstitious beliefs. Rather we use the definitions of supra-natural or infra-natural. Above the normal or bellow the normal. Did you just come out of your "cage" of no up-bringing, like crawling, and not being able to speak ? Well than you have not read my Book !
If you in your self developed intelligence do not think I belong in Science or wikipedia, then i do not know what you are doing here !
user: Foreever_true
I AM ALL EARS HERE if we can agree on some kind of logic. -- Forever true ( talk) 04:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I found a link to http://censusindiamaps.net in almost 147 pages which is nothing but a spam. Even though the name of this site looks too official, it is nothing official and is only spam. Now these links should be removed. How to go about? BrownyCat ( talk) 06:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, we would share a link to a collection of NGS software (e.g. aligners, assembler, etc.) at this page. Users can easily obtain an overview on the available tools for analyzing their data. I put the link first under "See also" but Johnuniq remove it with a statement "not appropriate for an external link to be in 'See also'; please explain how link helps on talk page".
Thanks for welcoming me. -- Babank ( talk) 19:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
TO THE PERSON THAT JUST TOOK OUT MY COMMENTS ON AGWA DE BOLIVIA, WHY DO YOU NOT CHECK THE FACTS? WHY DO YOU WANT TO MISS INFORM THE PUBLIC? WHY ARE YOU AFFRAID OF THE TRUTH? GIVE ME A CALL MY NAME IS SERGIO RUIZ-MIER, MY PHONE NUMBER IS -------------. GIVE ME A CALL. I AM NOT AFFRAID OF YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sruizmier ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi John,
I have seen your message and commented accordingly on the article as requested. I would really appreciate feedback. Apologies for any trouble caused by my lack of understanding the project.
Dave
Webzcas ( talk) 08:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks John. I have again responded. I appreciate the reassurance and your prompt reply.
Webzcas ( talk) 09:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
All bases within my experience and immediate thoughts were covered by the assertions made, but I did realize and consider that there was an underlying likelihood also of admin-necessity, strictly playing by what's on a page, vs. what should be on the page in broader and more neutral context, if some slack was allowed; my comments reflected the notable slack available, behind and for such a view, without questioning the validity of the sourcing question you raised. Your comments are much appreciated, both as some acceptance of that, but also in an effort to move the article along. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 12:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that personal attack from my user page. And me not even being French... :-)) -- Crusio ( talk) 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
~Take a glance at my talk page. Sets new standards... Macdonald-ross ( talk) 06:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi John, could perhaps keep an eye on the discussion at Talk:Magnetic-core memory. Cheers, — Ruud 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That particular EL which was removed by your edit simply explains the oppression & subsequent liberation that took place in South Travancore in yester years, before the formation of Kerala & Kanyakumari district, for which Nesamony is still remembered. I feel even now that EL is very important in understanding the mind-set of Marshal Nesamony, without any prejudice or bias against/for him. Kindly clarify further on the subject. With regards,-- Kumaripriya ( talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please produce one of your shorter lists of diffs for Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and put it on the talk page of that article? I'll be looking at this article next and there are a lot of diffs to go through. I find going through your list much easier, especially when going backwards and forwards between the diff pages and the actual edits.
Many thanks. -- Merlinme ( talk) 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking about trying to improve this article, so I'm watching it. I agree with you that the text you deleted is inaccurate, but it might be close to the mark. You might look at pp. 46-47 of the book (available at http://books.google.com/books?id=kLKTa_OeoNIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=guns+germs+and+steel&hl=en) and let me know what you think. Maybe we can come up with an accurate statement. Bloody Viking ( talk) 13:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq! I see you didn't get any notice here about the SAQ's being featured on the main page this Saturday. My guess is that the cutoff point for notification is those who have made 100 or more edits. But statistics can lie. No number of edit counts can give a true idea of the worth of your contributions. Of course Tom, Nishidani, and Paul put in the most work. But Xover and I were notified, and, if we deserve to bask in a little of the glory, so do you. As far as I'm concerned, you were among those who can be considered a "significant contributor". It was a pleasure working with you on the article. Oh, and I suppose you could use a bit of a rest, as can I, but eventually I wouldn't mind collaborating with you on that custom template for the citations that we talked about what now seems like a long time ago. Regards, Alan W ( talk) 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, please explain...
Do you have any suggestions to make for the article?
I do not see fairness in tagging this article without suggesting edits.
Thank you
"It is too easy for someone to put a WP:COI tag on an article. Editors need to take responsibility prior to tagging someone else's hard work in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF. Editors must be able to show that they have taken the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Many of the editors of the articles in question have not been treated with the respect laid out by the WP Admin. Before COI editors become the police, judge & jury it's important to the integrity of WP that these guidelines be followed. In a case where an article I had written was tagged the "COI editor" did not contact me at all prior to tagging my article. When trying to communicate with the "COI editor" and asking for specifics they said " I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation". I believe it is important to the integrity of WP that a COI editor become "well versed" in what they are doing before they take action.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)" Jespah 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It suddenly occurrs to me that while you are not mentioned by name, you have an interest in this discussion. My apologies, I am but slowly learning how to properly use these procedures under various circumstances.
Aquib ( talk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 April 2011
Hey! I noticed that you have previously reverted an edit at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day to declare it an annual event. I've was having a conversation with a new WP:SPA about why it isn't inherently an annual event. The conversation has degraded into two editors flinging derogatory words at me. The degradation of the conversation has resulted in the two editors pushing to edit war which I won't have a part of. I'm leaving this message here for you and any other editors who have been involved with the subject being an annual event or not as an invitation to either join the conversation or simply edit the page as you see fit. Regardless of your opinion and how it compares to mine, I feel like the situation is degrading and more eyes on the situation will only help work things out. OlYeller Talktome 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi John. Regarding the Jagged cleanup, I vaguely remember you offering to make all individual diffs of an editor on any given article appear as a single one. If technically feasible, this would be very helpful in the cleanup process. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Please put them here, at my talk page or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists wherever you think it is best:
All done, I think (although I did it a bit quickly to be really sure). These are links to the sections I added:
I have worked out how to do this fairly easily now (I now have a script to generate the wikitext to be added to the talk page), so after you have had a look at some of these and checked that they seem ok, add a new section below with any more, and I'll do them. I suppose I could just work down the major items from the Top edits page? If the text in the section that I add should be changed or enhanced, let me know. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
YOor removal of my huge section was somewhat surprising but now I see your reasons. IT will take me a couple of days to reorganize it as you have suggested.
I interspersed the previous user's comment because he raised at least two different concepts and I wanted to repluy to each one separately. I still do. So how do you suggest I do that? Old_Wombat ( talk) 07:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- I restored BabelStone's version, since the table in question specifically addresses the Unicode code space. Although 21 bits (1FFFFF) can be represented in four bytes using the UTF-8 scheme, the Unicode code space stops at 10FFFF. -- Elphion ( talk) 05:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That looks great. If you hadn't picked up the hint, and pressed round for the move, no one would have thought of getting this right. Cheers Nishidani ( talk) 10:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Johnuniq,
This is regarding my addition in Sinusitis article. My addition was removed by quoting some rules and I understand that.
I would like you to look at the world through my eyes. I have suffered from chronic sinusitis complications for many years now. I have a masters degree in engineering and I have been using the internet for over 12 yrs now. using all my knowledge, and searches on the web, I was not able to find a remedy for my problem. If we rely on doctors or government organizations only, to create knowledge and raise awareness, there will be many more people who will undergo the same problem as mine though the problem already has a solution.
I would like to request you to be an enabler in sharing my remedies and information in the sinusitis article. you are welcome to quote it as unverified. However, I'm sure you understand that many people with same condition as mine will find this information very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilal728 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Unles you can prove 1=9 plese revert your edit . Or explain why for you this numerical falacy does not mather. Do you need additional explanation in this mather? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 09:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for jumping in there, :) -- Artoasis ( talk) 04:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
Talkback|Geofferybard}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geofferybard#Administrative_action:_does_it_ever_cross_the_line.3F Thanks.
Bard गीता
22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq,
I wonder if you have any more thoughts on my user essay. On Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition#Deny automated recognition you said you weren't in the mood for careful reading... I thought maybe you mood would have changed. :-) Or maybe you have a response to the additional comment I posted there.
Regards,
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as a reverter there, please help to resolve the reports at the BLPN here, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi John!
Thank you very much for your contributions to the recent flare up of allegations regarding conflict of interest. (There are two COI discussions, which were dismissed.) Your chronology should be useful to any (regrettable) future discussions.
Thanks again!
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
this [1]
Hi, I noticed that you reverted some edits in Felisa Wolfe-Simon. I completely agree with the reversion, but for some reason the current version of the article shows the un-reverted version, even though your change is listed in the history. I do not understand why this is, but it is definitely a problem with the article, rather than my computer etc (I tried multiple machines and locations). I don't know if you have the same problem, but I thought I'd tell you. Best, Rainbowwrasse ( talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion about improving Wikipedia's help documentation inspired an idea--tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it, or know some editors or coders who might? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. You can add feedback at User_talk:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game where discussion has begun, if you like. Cheers, Ocaasi c 17:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi at Arbitration I asked you to please clarify want Sydney Bluegum is advocating my diff in section [2] I posted here as I thought my question was looking a bit lost at sea. Blackash have a chat 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens ( talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You've been around for quite a while and always are a calm and helpful person. If you're interested, I'd be happy to nominate you for adminship. Cheers, — Ruud 09:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You are mentioned here. Fuhiy ( talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Where in WP:TALK does it prohibit contribution to "old discussion"? Particularly when the topic of discussion has yet to be resolved and is still the topic of a current dispute? That you found my comment so quickly highlights location of my new comment in an "old" thread isn't a problem when looking for new contributions. If you can point to a particular policy section that expressly forbids my contribution, fair enough. Otherwise please stop censoring my involvement. 203.129.23.146 ( talk) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear John, Forgive me if I'm bullying you. But I should say the fact that Bircham International University is unaccredited is mentioned everywhere along the article. It is also clearly explained in the institution's website as well. I do not understand how anybody can confuse a Consumer Protection with an accreditation. Consumer Protection does not ensure education quality and it does not pretend so as far as I know. I believe that it is an important fact to inform that an institution like Bircham offers some protection to the consumers. I came back with this because recently Bircham was granted the Spain Online Trust seal. This seal is an important for any institution offering online products or services. there a category devoted to educational institutions. If you take a few minutes to browse these list you will find the major banks and companies included. The reliability and importance of this fact is there. I might add the following, you can revert it, its your right at wiki, or might think for some time.
In 2011, BIU was audited and granted the Online Trust Seal [1] [2] also endorsed by the Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs [3] Shoovrow ( talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Re [3]
I think it best if I avoid further discussions concerning Jimbo. Maybe after the situation has de-escalated substantially.
In the article discussions, I'm trying to get editors to focus on being "very firm about the use of high quality sources." I've tried to explain the charity discussion further on the article talk page. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope you like my mending. Call me Josh; I'm not an utter newbie here but will by all means welcome help and advice.
O'k, I see you've mentioned some convention, haven't you? The point is that I'd started mending spelling on a score of pages at once: here I realised that I need to mend links, too (as usual), but I also realised that a half of the articles should be thereby renamed — and the sooner the better, because people might at all sudden miss them.
I didn't know that most of them already had their pair to redirect; but some didn't.
The first episode of such renaming seems now to be finished: all the moved pages reportedly have their pairs.
If something wrong still remains to be considered, please notice it the sooner the better. Thank you very much:) Lincoln Josh ( talk) 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I never was there before: Wiki is a great project and has lots of items. I have found
WP:ENGVAR exceptionally interesting and helpful:)
I've got what you said about "style", and I have to admit that.
What do you think about this —
Wikipedia:UW?
I've visited several such pages and bookmarked them for further learning:) I hope for our further effective collaboration;)
Yours,
Lincoln Josh (
talk)
13:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) :D
For later reference, if needed, these are the articles affected by recent edits:
I have reverted all the spelling changes and moved all the articles back to their original titles. Exception: the spelling change in International Direct Dialling made that article consistent with its title, and I did not revert it. It is awkward that there is a spelling style inconsistency between articles, but that is part of Wikipedia. If consistency were wanted, a first step would be a discussion at a suitable wikiproject, although that might not be easy in practice. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Ummm...thanks? I was correcting what I thought was some graffiti in the article (It said "Stephanie... zebras are human" or something like that). Not sure why my edit would be tied to the graffiti and thought of as a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.158.165 ( talk) 05:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, Why did you undo rev 436465460 by 145.7.224.13 (www.mytagtv.com) ? Is this site not an perfect example of viral videos and a valid addition in the external urls section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.7.224.21 ( talk) 09:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, I appreciate your effort to minimize spam in wikipedia entries, and I have to confess that I was quite lazy last night when I dedicated some time to work on including the research results of this recent Science paper in several wikipedia articles that can be informed by them. However, even if my laziness resulted in signs that might be reminiscent of "exactly what a spammer would do" (as you put it), especially using the same reference and sometimes even the same wording, I would please kindly ask you to not simply blindly revert all entries made without even reading them... Many of them were carefully and uniquely formulated (i.e. contributions to the article in calculator, broadcasting, satellite television, telecentre, mobile phone, history of internet, digital, bit, entropy (information theory), etc). It took me several hours to work on them... This being said, I agree that I was sloppy with some of them, and will not undo your deletion (i.e. until I find time to elaborate tailor-made contributions), and I thank your vigilant eye. However, several of the ones that you "categorically" deleted are unique contributions that are (a) based on high-quality research results (i.e. published in maybe the most respected scientific journal out there), (b) are extremely informative for the content of the articles, (c) are tailor-made contributions to the articles. P.S. The reference includes two external links to the article (1) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 (which is the official link, but one has to have subscription to access the article, such as many universities have), and (2) through this page: http://www.martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html (because it turns out that the Journal Science allows the open public to access the article for free, as long as they go through this specific webpage (doesn't work to just send the link, it won't be enabled... the user has to go through the "author's personal webiste to get free access"...) that's just how it works... Please let me know if you have any further disagreements with these contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by GEBStgo ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
'there is a clear consensus that the changes are helpful'
possibly before you make unhelpful remarks like that you may care to take a look at the Wikipedia:Consensus page.
Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.
You may wish to look at the 'frequent changes' I have written on the talkpage and which wind up in the article.
Do please read the talkpage which you are talking about first, it's less embarrassing for you that way. Penyulap talk 04:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Partially I'm testing out the new WikiLove feature.. but mostly, I wanted to thank you for your kind words about me at the recent AN/I thread. They meant a lot. Cheers, Mlm42 ( talk) 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hello. I am not quite sure what this editor is up to, but I noticed that they are adding irrelevant information, loosely to related to R&I, in articles where it is inappropriate and tangential, i.e. WP:UNDUE. Miradre effectively added a "see also" in List of international rankings by linking to two books of Richard Lynn under the heading "demographics". She has been very evasive about what was intended by those links: to me it looks like spamming and advocacy. She is attempting to add R&I information to articles where it is WP:UNDUE. She seems to be wasting the time of a lot of editors; at no point sp far in her extensive discussions have I seen her agreeing with any other editor, including two administrators. Things seem to be getting out of control. Mathsci ( talk) 09:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 15:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
RE: Do you want to permit some interchange of ideas from me ?
How can Reason and Science be associated correctly with Richard Dawkins flawed logic of Evolution and wrong logic ? --Forever true (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This section should be removed because it is not concerned with improvements to the article. Please see WP:TPG. Also, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and WP:FRINGE makes clear that pseudoscience is not given "equal time" with scientific topics such as evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry please remove me, from the bettering of the article. But the article has, other books comments! And your definition of pseudo Science clearly shows you are not aware of your logic, not thought reasons! So you can include me in others Books comments. I will go to Court over, I must advise you that using of pseudo-Science terminology. Not because of any offense, but because of your inferior logic. You are clearly showing your ignorance, and I am of no Religion, ok. Rather pure logic. Please see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Forever_true/Pure_Logic. And see if you can wrap your mind around the logic. Like Dawkin's Fallacy no.1 and no.2.
In true and correct Science of Pure Logic, the super-natural is associated with superstitious beliefs. Rather we use the definitions of supra-natural or infra-natural. Above the normal or bellow the normal. Did you just come out of your "cage" of no up-bringing, like crawling, and not being able to speak ? Well than you have not read my Book !
If you in your self developed intelligence do not think I belong in Science or wikipedia, then i do not know what you are doing here !
user: Foreever_true
I AM ALL EARS HERE if we can agree on some kind of logic. -- Forever true ( talk) 04:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I found a link to http://censusindiamaps.net in almost 147 pages which is nothing but a spam. Even though the name of this site looks too official, it is nothing official and is only spam. Now these links should be removed. How to go about? BrownyCat ( talk) 06:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, we would share a link to a collection of NGS software (e.g. aligners, assembler, etc.) at this page. Users can easily obtain an overview on the available tools for analyzing their data. I put the link first under "See also" but Johnuniq remove it with a statement "not appropriate for an external link to be in 'See also'; please explain how link helps on talk page".
Thanks for welcoming me. -- Babank ( talk) 19:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
TO THE PERSON THAT JUST TOOK OUT MY COMMENTS ON AGWA DE BOLIVIA, WHY DO YOU NOT CHECK THE FACTS? WHY DO YOU WANT TO MISS INFORM THE PUBLIC? WHY ARE YOU AFFRAID OF THE TRUTH? GIVE ME A CALL MY NAME IS SERGIO RUIZ-MIER, MY PHONE NUMBER IS -------------. GIVE ME A CALL. I AM NOT AFFRAID OF YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sruizmier ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi John,
I have seen your message and commented accordingly on the article as requested. I would really appreciate feedback. Apologies for any trouble caused by my lack of understanding the project.
Dave
Webzcas ( talk) 08:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks John. I have again responded. I appreciate the reassurance and your prompt reply.
Webzcas ( talk) 09:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
All bases within my experience and immediate thoughts were covered by the assertions made, but I did realize and consider that there was an underlying likelihood also of admin-necessity, strictly playing by what's on a page, vs. what should be on the page in broader and more neutral context, if some slack was allowed; my comments reflected the notable slack available, behind and for such a view, without questioning the validity of the sourcing question you raised. Your comments are much appreciated, both as some acceptance of that, but also in an effort to move the article along. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 12:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that personal attack from my user page. And me not even being French... :-)) -- Crusio ( talk) 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
~Take a glance at my talk page. Sets new standards... Macdonald-ross ( talk) 06:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi John, could perhaps keep an eye on the discussion at Talk:Magnetic-core memory. Cheers, — Ruud 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That particular EL which was removed by your edit simply explains the oppression & subsequent liberation that took place in South Travancore in yester years, before the formation of Kerala & Kanyakumari district, for which Nesamony is still remembered. I feel even now that EL is very important in understanding the mind-set of Marshal Nesamony, without any prejudice or bias against/for him. Kindly clarify further on the subject. With regards,-- Kumaripriya ( talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please produce one of your shorter lists of diffs for Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and put it on the talk page of that article? I'll be looking at this article next and there are a lot of diffs to go through. I find going through your list much easier, especially when going backwards and forwards between the diff pages and the actual edits.
Many thanks. -- Merlinme ( talk) 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking about trying to improve this article, so I'm watching it. I agree with you that the text you deleted is inaccurate, but it might be close to the mark. You might look at pp. 46-47 of the book (available at http://books.google.com/books?id=kLKTa_OeoNIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=guns+germs+and+steel&hl=en) and let me know what you think. Maybe we can come up with an accurate statement. Bloody Viking ( talk) 13:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq! I see you didn't get any notice here about the SAQ's being featured on the main page this Saturday. My guess is that the cutoff point for notification is those who have made 100 or more edits. But statistics can lie. No number of edit counts can give a true idea of the worth of your contributions. Of course Tom, Nishidani, and Paul put in the most work. But Xover and I were notified, and, if we deserve to bask in a little of the glory, so do you. As far as I'm concerned, you were among those who can be considered a "significant contributor". It was a pleasure working with you on the article. Oh, and I suppose you could use a bit of a rest, as can I, but eventually I wouldn't mind collaborating with you on that custom template for the citations that we talked about what now seems like a long time ago. Regards, Alan W ( talk) 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, please explain...
Do you have any suggestions to make for the article?
I do not see fairness in tagging this article without suggesting edits.
Thank you
"It is too easy for someone to put a WP:COI tag on an article. Editors need to take responsibility prior to tagging someone else's hard work in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF. Editors must be able to show that they have taken the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Many of the editors of the articles in question have not been treated with the respect laid out by the WP Admin. Before COI editors become the police, judge & jury it's important to the integrity of WP that these guidelines be followed. In a case where an article I had written was tagged the "COI editor" did not contact me at all prior to tagging my article. When trying to communicate with the "COI editor" and asking for specifics they said " I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation". I believe it is important to the integrity of WP that a COI editor become "well versed" in what they are doing before they take action.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)" Jespah 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It suddenly occurrs to me that while you are not mentioned by name, you have an interest in this discussion. My apologies, I am but slowly learning how to properly use these procedures under various circumstances.
Aquib ( talk) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 April 2011
Hey! I noticed that you have previously reverted an edit at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day to declare it an annual event. I've was having a conversation with a new WP:SPA about why it isn't inherently an annual event. The conversation has degraded into two editors flinging derogatory words at me. The degradation of the conversation has resulted in the two editors pushing to edit war which I won't have a part of. I'm leaving this message here for you and any other editors who have been involved with the subject being an annual event or not as an invitation to either join the conversation or simply edit the page as you see fit. Regardless of your opinion and how it compares to mine, I feel like the situation is degrading and more eyes on the situation will only help work things out. OlYeller Talktome 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi John. Regarding the Jagged cleanup, I vaguely remember you offering to make all individual diffs of an editor on any given article appear as a single one. If technically feasible, this would be very helpful in the cleanup process. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Please put them here, at my talk page or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists wherever you think it is best:
All done, I think (although I did it a bit quickly to be really sure). These are links to the sections I added:
I have worked out how to do this fairly easily now (I now have a script to generate the wikitext to be added to the talk page), so after you have had a look at some of these and checked that they seem ok, add a new section below with any more, and I'll do them. I suppose I could just work down the major items from the Top edits page? If the text in the section that I add should be changed or enhanced, let me know. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
YOor removal of my huge section was somewhat surprising but now I see your reasons. IT will take me a couple of days to reorganize it as you have suggested.
I interspersed the previous user's comment because he raised at least two different concepts and I wanted to repluy to each one separately. I still do. So how do you suggest I do that? Old_Wombat ( talk) 07:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- I restored BabelStone's version, since the table in question specifically addresses the Unicode code space. Although 21 bits (1FFFFF) can be represented in four bytes using the UTF-8 scheme, the Unicode code space stops at 10FFFF. -- Elphion ( talk) 05:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That looks great. If you hadn't picked up the hint, and pressed round for the move, no one would have thought of getting this right. Cheers Nishidani ( talk) 10:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Johnuniq,
This is regarding my addition in Sinusitis article. My addition was removed by quoting some rules and I understand that.
I would like you to look at the world through my eyes. I have suffered from chronic sinusitis complications for many years now. I have a masters degree in engineering and I have been using the internet for over 12 yrs now. using all my knowledge, and searches on the web, I was not able to find a remedy for my problem. If we rely on doctors or government organizations only, to create knowledge and raise awareness, there will be many more people who will undergo the same problem as mine though the problem already has a solution.
I would like to request you to be an enabler in sharing my remedies and information in the sinusitis article. you are welcome to quote it as unverified. However, I'm sure you understand that many people with same condition as mine will find this information very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilal728 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Unles you can prove 1=9 plese revert your edit . Or explain why for you this numerical falacy does not mather. Do you need additional explanation in this mather? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 09:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for jumping in there, :) -- Artoasis ( talk) 04:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
Talkback|Geofferybard}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geofferybard#Administrative_action:_does_it_ever_cross_the_line.3F Thanks.
Bard गीता
22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq,
I wonder if you have any more thoughts on my user essay. On Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition#Deny automated recognition you said you weren't in the mood for careful reading... I thought maybe you mood would have changed. :-) Or maybe you have a response to the additional comment I posted there.
Regards,
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as a reverter there, please help to resolve the reports at the BLPN here, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi John!
Thank you very much for your contributions to the recent flare up of allegations regarding conflict of interest. (There are two COI discussions, which were dismissed.) Your chronology should be useful to any (regrettable) future discussions.
Thanks again!
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
this [1]
Hi, I noticed that you reverted some edits in Felisa Wolfe-Simon. I completely agree with the reversion, but for some reason the current version of the article shows the un-reverted version, even though your change is listed in the history. I do not understand why this is, but it is definitely a problem with the article, rather than my computer etc (I tried multiple machines and locations). I don't know if you have the same problem, but I thought I'd tell you. Best, Rainbowwrasse ( talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion about improving Wikipedia's help documentation inspired an idea--tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it, or know some editors or coders who might? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. You can add feedback at User_talk:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game where discussion has begun, if you like. Cheers, Ocaasi c 17:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi at Arbitration I asked you to please clarify want Sydney Bluegum is advocating my diff in section [2] I posted here as I thought my question was looking a bit lost at sea. Blackash have a chat 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens ( talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You've been around for quite a while and always are a calm and helpful person. If you're interested, I'd be happy to nominate you for adminship. Cheers, — Ruud 09:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You are mentioned here. Fuhiy ( talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Where in WP:TALK does it prohibit contribution to "old discussion"? Particularly when the topic of discussion has yet to be resolved and is still the topic of a current dispute? That you found my comment so quickly highlights location of my new comment in an "old" thread isn't a problem when looking for new contributions. If you can point to a particular policy section that expressly forbids my contribution, fair enough. Otherwise please stop censoring my involvement. 203.129.23.146 ( talk) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear John, Forgive me if I'm bullying you. But I should say the fact that Bircham International University is unaccredited is mentioned everywhere along the article. It is also clearly explained in the institution's website as well. I do not understand how anybody can confuse a Consumer Protection with an accreditation. Consumer Protection does not ensure education quality and it does not pretend so as far as I know. I believe that it is an important fact to inform that an institution like Bircham offers some protection to the consumers. I came back with this because recently Bircham was granted the Spain Online Trust seal. This seal is an important for any institution offering online products or services. there a category devoted to educational institutions. If you take a few minutes to browse these list you will find the major banks and companies included. The reliability and importance of this fact is there. I might add the following, you can revert it, its your right at wiki, or might think for some time.
In 2011, BIU was audited and granted the Online Trust Seal [1] [2] also endorsed by the Spain Ministry of Consumer Affairs [3] Shoovrow ( talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Re [3]
I think it best if I avoid further discussions concerning Jimbo. Maybe after the situation has de-escalated substantially.
In the article discussions, I'm trying to get editors to focus on being "very firm about the use of high quality sources." I've tried to explain the charity discussion further on the article talk page. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope you like my mending. Call me Josh; I'm not an utter newbie here but will by all means welcome help and advice.
O'k, I see you've mentioned some convention, haven't you? The point is that I'd started mending spelling on a score of pages at once: here I realised that I need to mend links, too (as usual), but I also realised that a half of the articles should be thereby renamed — and the sooner the better, because people might at all sudden miss them.
I didn't know that most of them already had their pair to redirect; but some didn't.
The first episode of such renaming seems now to be finished: all the moved pages reportedly have their pairs.
If something wrong still remains to be considered, please notice it the sooner the better. Thank you very much:) Lincoln Josh ( talk) 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I never was there before: Wiki is a great project and has lots of items. I have found
WP:ENGVAR exceptionally interesting and helpful:)
I've got what you said about "style", and I have to admit that.
What do you think about this —
Wikipedia:UW?
I've visited several such pages and bookmarked them for further learning:) I hope for our further effective collaboration;)
Yours,
Lincoln Josh (
talk)
13:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) :D
For later reference, if needed, these are the articles affected by recent edits:
I have reverted all the spelling changes and moved all the articles back to their original titles. Exception: the spelling change in International Direct Dialling made that article consistent with its title, and I did not revert it. It is awkward that there is a spelling style inconsistency between articles, but that is part of Wikipedia. If consistency were wanted, a first step would be a discussion at a suitable wikiproject, although that might not be easy in practice. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Ummm...thanks? I was correcting what I thought was some graffiti in the article (It said "Stephanie... zebras are human" or something like that). Not sure why my edit would be tied to the graffiti and thought of as a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.158.165 ( talk) 05:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, Why did you undo rev 436465460 by 145.7.224.13 (www.mytagtv.com) ? Is this site not an perfect example of viral videos and a valid addition in the external urls section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.7.224.21 ( talk) 09:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, I appreciate your effort to minimize spam in wikipedia entries, and I have to confess that I was quite lazy last night when I dedicated some time to work on including the research results of this recent Science paper in several wikipedia articles that can be informed by them. However, even if my laziness resulted in signs that might be reminiscent of "exactly what a spammer would do" (as you put it), especially using the same reference and sometimes even the same wording, I would please kindly ask you to not simply blindly revert all entries made without even reading them... Many of them were carefully and uniquely formulated (i.e. contributions to the article in calculator, broadcasting, satellite television, telecentre, mobile phone, history of internet, digital, bit, entropy (information theory), etc). It took me several hours to work on them... This being said, I agree that I was sloppy with some of them, and will not undo your deletion (i.e. until I find time to elaborate tailor-made contributions), and I thank your vigilant eye. However, several of the ones that you "categorically" deleted are unique contributions that are (a) based on high-quality research results (i.e. published in maybe the most respected scientific journal out there), (b) are extremely informative for the content of the articles, (c) are tailor-made contributions to the articles. P.S. The reference includes two external links to the article (1) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 (which is the official link, but one has to have subscription to access the article, such as many universities have), and (2) through this page: http://www.martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html (because it turns out that the Journal Science allows the open public to access the article for free, as long as they go through this specific webpage (doesn't work to just send the link, it won't be enabled... the user has to go through the "author's personal webiste to get free access"...) that's just how it works... Please let me know if you have any further disagreements with these contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by GEBStgo ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
'there is a clear consensus that the changes are helpful'
possibly before you make unhelpful remarks like that you may care to take a look at the Wikipedia:Consensus page.
Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.
You may wish to look at the 'frequent changes' I have written on the talkpage and which wind up in the article.
Do please read the talkpage which you are talking about first, it's less embarrassing for you that way. Penyulap talk 04:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Partially I'm testing out the new WikiLove feature.. but mostly, I wanted to thank you for your kind words about me at the recent AN/I thread. They meant a lot. Cheers, Mlm42 ( talk) 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hello. I am not quite sure what this editor is up to, but I noticed that they are adding irrelevant information, loosely to related to R&I, in articles where it is inappropriate and tangential, i.e. WP:UNDUE. Miradre effectively added a "see also" in List of international rankings by linking to two books of Richard Lynn under the heading "demographics". She has been very evasive about what was intended by those links: to me it looks like spamming and advocacy. She is attempting to add R&I information to articles where it is WP:UNDUE. She seems to be wasting the time of a lot of editors; at no point sp far in her extensive discussions have I seen her agreeing with any other editor, including two administrators. Things seem to be getting out of control. Mathsci ( talk) 09:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 15:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)